1920-06-28

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth) presented the first and final report of the Select Standing .Committee on Public Accounts.


Mr. HUME CRONYN (London) moved:: That 1,000 additional copies of the third and final report of the Special Committee on Pensions and Re-establishment be printed in English and sent to the clerk of the committee for distribution as instructed, and that Rule 74 be suspended in relation thereto.
He said: The original motion authorized the. printing of 1,000 copies, but the demand for copies has been so great that the supply is almost exhausted, and it is quite evident we shall need more copies for distribution throughout the country.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is a motion which, in the absence of notice, will require unanimous consent.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: As chairman of the Committee on Printing, which has control of these matters, I would say that no application for the printing of further copies has been made to the committee, and it is therefore contrary to the rules of the House to make a motion of this kind. I (would iaisk the hon. member to make application to the Printing Committee and we will see that he gets the extra copies printed within the next two or three days.	, i


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that the hon. member objects to the motion?


John Allister Currie: Yes.
Motion stands.



REMISSION OF CHARGES IN DIVORCE CASES.

Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (West Toronto) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the Select Standing- Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charge levied and paid under Rule 89, paragraph 3 (c) on Bill No. 207 (Better IE-5 of the Senate), for the relief of Charles Henry Foster be remitted.
Hon, RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve) : Explain.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: The charge in this case was made because the Bill was not introduced within the time prescribed by the rules of the House. The responsibility for that was upon the solicitor for the applicant, and he feels that his client ought to- get -this relief, which has- been granted to so many others in the same circumstances .


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I understand that this is a divorce Bill.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the custom, Mr. Speaker, to remit -the fees in divorce cases?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Speaking from memory, it has been done this session in one or two instances. It has also been done, I believe, in previous sessions. The motion in its terms states that it is based on the recommendation of the committee.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If it is carried, it will be carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.



JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING.


John Allister Currie: T	tlle [DOT]secon<i an<3 third reports of the
Joint Committee of both Houses on the Print-inig of Parliament be now concurred in.


Rt. Hon Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I would ask my hon. friend to defer his motion until to-morrow. One section of the report deals especially with statistical iraporte, and I am afraid as it stands it might cause some confusion. I have asked the proper officer to interview the chairman of the committee with reference to the matter.


John Allister Currie: I might say that I was
absent from the committee when the second report was dealt with. I understood from my colleagues in the Senate on the committee that the report was to he discussed at another meeting of the Printing Committee, and I was therefore -surprised a few days later to find that the report had been presented to the Senate, necessitating its being presented here by me. The third report does not deal with any controversial matters, but only with public documents presented to the House, recommending that certain of them he printed and that others be not printed. I would therefore suggest that the House adopt the third report, and let the second report stand.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The second report is the one that was presented on Saturday. I understand?


John Allister Currie: That was our first report. It does not contain any recommendation to print or not to print public 'documents. The third report deals entirely with public documents that have been presented to the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Lest I forget. I wish
now to express my surprise that the Joint Committee on Printing has appointed an Editorial Committee containing not one French name, although both languages are official. The Editorial Committee consists of Mr. Fred Cook, Assistant King's Printer, chairman; Mr. F. C. T. O'Hara, Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce; Mr. F. C. C. Lynch, Superintendent of Natural Resources Intelligence Branch, Department of Interior, and associated with that Committee in an advisory capacity are the Right Hon. Sir George Foster. Hon. A. Meighen and Hon. Mr. Burrell. I hope that my hon. friend before submitting his report for adoption will take my remarks into consideration and that it will be found advisable to add at least one French name to the Editorial Committee. Tt seems to me that the Government should also he represented on that, Editorial Committee by at least one French-speaking member.


John Allister Currie: I may say for the information of the hon. gentleman that the Committee on Printing had nothing to do with the appointment of the Editorial Committee. It is intended to leave the second report dealing with the cost of printing, etc., until to-morrow. I would move that the third report which is purely routine, be adopted now, and to-morrow I will move the adoption of the second report.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend does not answer my objection.


John Allister Currie: Unfortunately I cannot
deal with that report further than to submit it to-morrow to the House as it stands. It will then be for the House to instruct the Committee as to what action shall be taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member (Mr. Currie) desires to amend his motion by striking ont the word "second." The motion as amended calls for the adoption of the third report. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



TRADE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
iMr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Chambly and Vercheres):	My attention has been
directed to an article which appears in the Montreal Gazette of this morning and which contains the following headlines:
"Martens must be Deported from U. S. on Purchase There.-Canada Secures Trade which U. ,S. Government will not allow Amerioan to take.
The article in question goes on to state that Mr. 'L. C. A. K. Martens, Commercial Representative of the Soviet Government in the United States, has signed a contract with a Canadian firm for the shipment to Russia of several millions dollars' worth of food-stuffs, agricultural machinery and railroad equipment, and that the negotiations for this contract were carried on by Premier Lloyd .George and Mr. Gregory Krassin, Soviet Minister of Commerce and Russian Representative in London. I desire to ask the Government, first, whether trade has been resumed between Canada and Russia; secondly, whether the Government are aware of this large contract in question; and, thirdly, if so, whether it is true that the negotiations were carried on by Premier Lloyd George.
Rt. Hon. 'Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Min:Bter of Trade and Commerce):	In answer to
my hon. friend, I may say, first, that there are no restrictions as regards trade between the people of Russia and the people of Canada.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.
Sir GEOiRGE FOSTER: Any Canadian is at perfect liberty to make any arrangement he pleases in the way of trade with any Russian, and this Government does not grant any more facilities to one than to another. It is perfectly free and open to the people of the two countries to make any arrangements they desire a6 regards trade. In the second place, I may say that no negotiations have been carried on govern-nientally, although J may inform the House that I have been asked whether there is any ojection to such trade being carried on and I have answered that there is not. As to what contracts have 'been made,-that is a matter with which the 'Government has nothing to do, and in, regard to which, therefore, it has no special information; but it is currently stated that considerable contracts have already been entered into.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 200 (from the Senate), for the relief of iMuriel Uurren Gilmour.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 201 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marie Jeanne Yvonne Alberfine St. Amour Lallemand.-Mr. Duff.
Bill No. 202 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lauretta Estelle Cook.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 203 (from the Senate), for the relief of Reginald Muir Barlow.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 204 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alfred John Crawford.-Mr. Hock-en.
Bill No. 205 (from the iSenate), for the relief of Frederick Minskip.-IMr. Fripp.
Bill No. 207 (from the Senate), for the relief of Charles Henry Foster.-Mr. Wallace. |
Bill No. 208 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frank Cox.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill No. 209 (from the Senate), for the relief of Joseph Dube.-IMr. Fripp. ,
(Bill No. 210 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Donnelly.-IMr. Wallace. -

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware of the following memorandum issued by 8. W. McMichael, acting commissioner of customs and addressed to the collectors of customs and others concerned, dated 1st June, instant?
File No. 99678.	No. 2398-B
Memorandum.
Department of Customs, Canada.
Ottawa, 1st June, 1920.
To Collectors of Customs
and others concerned :-
French Treaty
ceases to he in force after 19th June, 1920.
Referring to Memorandum No. 2368-B, containing The French Convention Act, 1919, you are advised that notice has been given for termination of the convention respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France, dated 19th September, 1907, and the supplementary convention, respecting Commercial Relations between Canada and France, dated 23rd January, 1909, whereby the said Franco-Canadian Commercial Conventions cease to be in force after 19th June, 1920.
Notes-While articles the produce or manufacture of Jaipan will after the 19th June, 1920, not be entitled to the benefit of the rates of duty provided under the said Franco-Canadian Commercial Conventions by reason of the existence of these conventions, such articles will still be entitled to the Intermediate Tariff as extended in part to Belgium, The Netherlands and Italy.-(Vide Memo. No. 1592-B).
Note further-Regulations respecting Samples (Vide Memo. 1729-B) will, after the 19th June, 1920, apply only to British countries and to Japan.	,
S. W. McMichael, Acting Commissioner of Customs.
2.	Is the Honourable Minister aware of the fact that French importations now coming in under the general tariff rates are discriminated against by the admission of many similar goods from Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy under the intermediate tariff?
3.	In order not to dislocate the trade which has developed between Canada and France, should not the honourable minister offer my cable to the French Government our intermediate tariff against their minimum tariff pending negotiations towards a permanent agreement?


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Steps have already been taken in the direction indicated by the question.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister), who stated that the assent of His Excellency the Governor General had been obtained, it was resolved that the House go into committee to-day on a resolution increasing the salaries of ministers of the Crown, and the Solicitor General of Canada, the allowance of the leader of the Opposition, the salaries of the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons and the Deputy Speaker of the House oE Commons and the indemnities of members of the Senate and House of Commons.

[Stage Direction]
Rt, Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the House go into committee to-day on a resolution to amend Bill 206 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
He said: This resolution makes provision for a portion of the powers already exercised by the Wheat Board which were omitted in the preceding resolution. The provisions are for the purpose of working out vthe really organic powers that are given to the board.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Bordep (for the Minister of Justice), who announced that the assent of the Governor General had been obtained thereto, tha
[Stage Direction]


House resolved to go into Committee of the Whole to-day on a resolution providing for an increase in judges' salaries.

[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RAILWAY COMMITTEE! TO MAKE NECESSARY ORDERS.
On motion of Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden ((Prime Minister), the House went into committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair, on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure amending The Railway Act, 1911, by adding thereto provisions conferring upon the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada, power to do and authorize all such acts and things and to make from time to time all such orders and regulations as the board may deem necessary or advisable by reason of real apprehended scarcity of coal and other fuel supplies in Canada.
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke to the House on this subject I dealt with the situation in respect to the importations of coal up to the 31st May. I then gave to the House a statement of the importations during the present year as compared with those of last year. The statement I then made was very encouraging with respect to the period from the 1st January to the 31 st Miay this year as indicating that importations during the present year had been somewhat greater than during the corresponding period of last year. Since that time the two ministers who were particularly charged with the consideration and investigation of the situation with regard to coal, have been giving very close and earnest attention thereto 'and on Saturday I was informed by my hon. friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson) that a somewhat serious condition had arisen particularly during the past four or five days and that there is urgent need for some such action as that which is indicated in the resolution now before the committee. I think it is best 1 should read to the committee a report which I asked for, which was handed to me this morning and which embodies the information presented to me about noon on Saturday. I should say that immediately upon receiving this information I took the subject into consideration, discussed it with such of my colleagues as were available and decided that the resolution in question should be placed on the Order Paper. The report of the two ministers

which was handed to me this morning, is as follows:
Ottawa, June 2-8, 192i0.
To His Excellency, the Governor General in Council:
The undersigned ministers, having been delegated by His Excellency the Governor in Council to give special attention to the coal situation and alleged shortage in coal supply, have the honour to report that:
From January 1 to June 1, 19)2i0, the importations of both anthracite and bituminous coal from the United States exceeded the quantity received during the same period in 1919, but, because of the reserves being low, was scarcely sufficient to supply the normal requirements. Since April 15 of this year, and particularly since June 1, receipts of coal have been very irregular and unsatisfactory.
The provinces of Ontario and Quebec are wholly dependent upon outside sources for their supply of coal. The province of Ontario alone requires three and one half millions of tons of anthracite per year, or approximately 64,500 cars, which means an average shipment of about 200 cars per day for each day in the year. Since April 1st of this year we were short on our daily receipts 125 cars per day. Ontario requires eleven millions of tons of bituminous coal annually, equivalent to 220,000 cars of 50 tons each, or a daily shipment of 600 cars. From April 1st to June 15th, 28,930 cars, or 380 cars per day were received, leaving a shortage in daily receipts of bituminous coal of 220 cars per day. The situation in Quebec is much similar though accurate figures are not at the moment available.
Our investigations clearly indicate a most serious situation so far as transportation in the United States is concerned, inadequate car supply and strikes of railway employees largely contributing to the serious congestion. Industries in the United States are, in many instances, ' curtailing their output or closing down for lack of^ fuel, and the Government of that country has placed the control of the distribution of coal in the hands of the Interstate Commerce Commission who have, we are informed, made three orders which have a bearing on the situation here, i.e.
(1)	Embargoed the exportation of coal from the Atlantic ports to outside countries;
(2)	Fixed priorities;
(3)	Are permitting only such cars to come to Canada as they are assured will be unloaded within twenty four hours from the time they are placed, and, further, that the cars will be returned diresct for re-loading.
It is further apparent that this pooling arrangement and distribution through the commission in order of priority is having the effect of sending many Canadian coal cars to other destinations, rendering the car situation still more difficult.
It is to be further observed that there have been exported from Canada, between January 1st and June 1st, 1920, approximately 160,000 tons of coal from Nova Scotia to European ports, principally Holland and France. Prior to the war approximately two million tons per year were brought from the Nova Scotia fields up the St. Lawrence, principally to Montreal, which supply has been almost entirely cut off.
In view of the United States having embargoed the exported coal to foreign countries, be-

cause of the serious shortage at home, it will be difficult for Canada to consistently contend for increased supply from the United States unless an embargo is also placed upon the exportation of Canadian coal overseas.
The Provincial Fuel Commissioners find their task rendered more difficult as a result of P.C. 3004, of December, 1918, becoming inoperative.
In view of all the foregoing facts the undersigned have the honour to recommend that the fuel control such as existed under P.C. 3004, of December, 1918, should again be made effective and that a Fuel Controller, or some board with the necessary power, should be established, with a view of making an agreement with the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States to ensure a permanent and steady delivery such as will meet the Canadian requirement as far as is reasonably consistent, and to enable the Provincial Fuel Commissioners to effectively direct and control distribution equitably.
(signed) J. D. Reid,
Minister of Railways.
G. D. Robertson,
Minister of Labour.
Hon. gentlemen will understand that the Order in Council, 3004 of December, 1918, is a final revision of the Orders in Council which established the Fuel Controller and which gave effect to the regulations which he recommended to the Governor in Council. They will understand further that the situation here disclosed is a serious one; but I do not wish it to be understood that the proposal of this resolution is the only action which is under our consideration. It is obvious, that some effective effort must be made, if possible, to ensure greater supplies from sources within this country itself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Now let me
point out that when the United States exercise control and establish priorities within their own country, it is absolutely futile for us to expect that they will send coal to this country unless we establish in Canada some tribunal with powers corresponding to those that are exercised in the United States by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Public opinion in the United States would not permit any such course, and the reason is very obvious. The use of coal is restricted in the United States to certain purposes, under certain established priorities, which have regard, for example, to essential industries as distinguished from those which are not essential; we could not therefore expect the United States to send to this country coal to be used without any control whatever, and absolutely irrespective of essential industries or of any priorities. It is therefore absolutely necessary that we shall confer upon some 275 J
authority in this country the power necessary for the purposes which I have indicated. There were two courses which seemed open. One was to ask Parliament to confer upon the Governor General in Council powers similar in this respect to those which the Government possessed under the War Measures Act. I have explained to the House on more than one occasion that the Government is not desirous of assuming responsibility of that character, if any other authority can be named and any other machinery can be devised for the purpose of taking such matters into consideration and of carrying out effectively what was carried out I think pretty effectively by Mr. Magrath as Fuel Controller, under the Order in Council of December, 1918, and under the Orders in Council which preceded it in date. It therefore occurred to me, and the suggestion was approved by my colleagues, that inasmuch as we have a Board of Railway Commissioners in Canada-which I believe is not oppressed with too great a burden of work at the present time, which has wide powers in respect of many cognate matters, and which possesses administrative machinery very highly organized-that we might very well ask the House to confer adequate powers upon that board, instead of confiding these powers to the Governor in Council as they were confided to us under the War Measures Act-not only in this respect but in other respects. I present the resolution to ithe committee for that purpose. It is perfectly obvious that we camiot fold ouir arms and sit still and do nothing. Something must be done. Wide powers must be conferred on some authority to deal with this matter while Parliament is not in session. Even if Parliament were in session continuously during the rest of this year, it is perfectly clear to every one that Parliament would be utterly helpless in attempting to exercise administrative powers of this character. I hope, therefore, that hon. gentlemen are fully seized of the facts and that the resolution which I now propose will receive their approval.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not disposed to
take pride in saying " I told you so,'' and it is not with a view to re-hash the statement I made the other day, and which was somewhat precipitated by way of a motion that I now rise, but simply to state that I am perfectly in agreement with the right hon. gentleman in the course he is now taking. I think it is the proper course, because this difficulty is principally one of transportation, and it is therefore quite fit-

ting that the control of coal should, for the time being, be placed in the hands of the Bailway Commission.
When I made my motion last week I had first-hand information of a very serious nature, from coal merchants in this city and from manufacturers, and that information was supplemented by despatches in the press stating that the Toronto Gas Company, and the Montreal Gas Company were short of coal, and that the latter company was applying to the Public Utilities Commission of Quebec to obtain higher rates for gas because of the scarcity of coal. But since then I have been in New York, and I am glad that the right hon. gentleman has taken hold of this very serious question, because I found that even in New York city last week emergency committees were being appointed by various industries to cope with the very serious coal shortage which now exists in the United States, notwithstanding that it is a country where coal is produced in such abundance.
I am at one with the right hon. gentleman when he states that in view of the present situation, which is certain to be aggravated from year to year, the Government should encourage in the most practical manner the more extensive operation of our coal deposits and of our shale deposits,-in other words, that the substitutes for coal which exist in the West and in the East should be developed with a view to relieving the coal shortage. As was stated a few minutes ago the two great central provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be hit most severely by this coal shortage, I still believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Government should put more than three of its steamers on the route between the mines of Sydney and the chief distributing centres of Montreal and Quebec.
Undoubtedly it is only fitting and proper that the Railway Commission should make it its primary duty to prevent a coal famine during next winter. I do not wish to be panicky but from the information I have gathered in the United States from special reviews dealing with the situation, there can be no doubt that it is a very seriohs matter so far as this country is concerned. That only emphasizes this feature, which I mentioned in another debate: we surely should not be entirely dependent on our great neighbour to the South for our coal supplies. As has been stated by the right hon. gentleman, we have vast coal deposits iand other fuel resources in abundance, and it requires only well directed effort on the part of our Government and

our people to become practically independent of our neighbours to the South
But it will take miany years before we are .able to develop our own fuel resources to the point that we shall be completely independent.
I am proud to know that during the war the United States treated Canada in a very fair manner as regards the coal supply that was needed for domestic and industrial purposes, and I am quite sure that if that feeling of amity between the tw.o; countries is cultivated we shall never regret it, because both countries should learn to give and take in matters of trade. We need the hard coal of Pennsylvania for Ontario and Quebec, and the United States require our pulp-wood for their paper industry. Therefore ia policy of give-iand-take should be cultivated by both countries, and I am confident that no one to-day, in view of the very serious coal situation which threatens us, would go into the byways of Ontario and Quebec and repeat the old 'slogan: No .truck iand no trade with Uncle Sam.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: I do not know that I heartily concur in the proposal to refer this matter to the Railway Commission. Personally, I think we would get much better satisfaction were we to ask Mr. Hanna, of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Kelly, of the Grand Trunk, and Mr. Beatty, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, to get together and organize adequate transporta-, tion facilities for the haulage of the coal from the United States to Ontario and Quebec. I rise, however, to once more emphasize the fact that we have within our own domain ample coal resources for all our needs, if we would only properly develop them. Moreover, in the matter of car shortage, if the Western American roads were encouraged to develop the Crowsnest coal deposits, they could relieve the car shortage to a very great extent. The Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul, the Northwestern and other United States roads run close to our border, and if we encouraged those roads to come into the 'Crowsnest Pass region and open up coal mines there-and we have in our semi-anthracite deposits there some of the very finest steam coal in the world-I am .satisfied the car shortage would be relieved, due to the removal of the long haul handicap from the American central coal fields to western points. We can also, as I pointed out on other occasions, by establishing routes from our coal mines in the Rocky mountains to the East, place our western coal to the utmost limits of On-

tario and Quebec at much cheaper rates than we can now get it from the United States mines.
I merely throw out the suggestion once more: that an active policy under responsible government is much better than dealing with theories about having control by the Railway 'Commission or any other body, and by that policy we must develop our roads and our coal mines within our own borders.


John Allister Currie: I have no desire to prolong this discussion. I rise simply to call the attention of the Government to something that I think might 'be done in the way of assisting the transportation of coal from the eastern to the central part of Canada. Along the Great Lakes we have a number of wharves and docks that are not equipped with coal handling machinery, and the lack of such facilities was found to be a very great drawback in obtaining coal from the United States by water. That condition exists along the St. Lawrence, and also, I understand, in the Maritime Provinces. I know that a plant for rapidly unloading coal from vessels is very expensive; on the other hand, if you had to depend on the primitive method of unloading by horse and bucket, it is also very expensive because of the length of time the ship is held in port. A type of self-discharging coal vessel, developed in the United States, has been very successfully used along the Great Lakes for a number of years. This vessel comes up to the dock and unloads anything from 25 to 500 tons without the use of any appliances on the dock and without employment oi coal-handlers. I suggest to the Government the advisability of considering, in connection with their shipbuilding programme, the building of half a dozen vessels of this kind. They could be loaded St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes and unwith coal from Nova Scotia, proceed up the load their cargoes at Government docks and wharfs, which can be found at nearly every town and village along the coast, without requiring any machinery whatever for the unloading of the cargo. Then, these ships would be useful in another respect, because during the winter -season when they could not proceed up the -Great Lakes they could trade with -South America -and Central America, carrying Canadian coal to small points along these southern coasts where coal is required and unloading it in the manner that I have mentioned. I direct the attention of the -Government to this matter, because at present the carrying of
coal from Nova Scotia in coalers and bringing it to central points where there is expensive unloading machinery is a more or less costly operation. I .believe that at only two or three points are these unloading docks to be found in all of lake Ontario, one at Kingston, one at Toronto, and some at Hamilton. The same applies to lake Erie and lake Huron. If self-discharging coal vessels were built they would be splendid earners, because they make a charge for unloading the coal just the same as if the cargo were unloaded in the ordinary manner; they get about 25 cents per ton for the unloading. It does seem to me that we are allowing the coal that we have in the East to be taken away from us. A few years ago Nova -Scotia coal was largely used to supply all the districts from Montreal east; now all the districts around Montreal and the -St. Lawrence are supplied with coal which comes from the United States. That is a condition of affairs which we should not allow to continue. The carriage of coal by water is the logical way of handling it and is cheaper than any other method. Apparently there is an impression in the minds of some hon. members that the shortage of cars in the United States is largely responsible for the difficulty in our obtaining coal. I have before me a copy of the Iron Age, the official organ of the iron and steel trade in the United States. I find that in the columns of this paper hundreds of secondhand gondola -coal cars, capable of passing inspection, are offered for sale. For instance, there is an offer of two hundred cars from Birmingham, Alabama. Well, if there was a shortage of cars, a company in Birmingham, Alabama, would not be offering to sell two hundred gondola coal cars. There must be something wrong if that is the case. Besides, I do not think this Government should have much difficulty in getting plenty of cars, either by lease or by purchase, to bring coal from the United States. But I am informed by some large users of coal that in the United States the moving of coal is permitted only in train loads. That presents a difficulty to Canadian users of coal, especially those in Ontario. No distinction is made in the charge for demurrage as between concerns that are using coal directly, under their boilers and in their furnaces, and those who are dealers. We all know that the shortage of cars a few years ago arose through the fact that the dealers frequently kept their cars of coal on the sidings for a considerable

length of time, in some cases steps becoming necessary to compel them to 3 p.m. unload. In other words, if they thought the market in coal was rising they would keep the loaded cars on their sidings indefinitely, paying one dollar a day per car for demurrage, and thus carrying on a kind of profiteering in coal. That condition was changed, but a very iniquitous thing was done, because no distinction was made between the man who needed the coal for his boilers and the man who was obtaining it for resale. There is hardly a man in Ontario who has been using coal during the last three or four years who has not been compelled to pay hundreds of dollars for demurrage which he really should not have had to pay. Suppose a man uses on the average a car of coal a day under his boilers or in his furnace. That man cannot safely have anything less than fourteen days' supply of coal on hand, because blizzards are liable to come up; the coal situation may become acute, and if he has not an adequate supply on hand he must close down for the winter. That has happened in very many *cases of which I have personal knowledge. Now, in order to have the necessary supply of coal he must bring the cars in and he must unload them. Unloading and reloading coal costs about fifty cents a ton more than it would cost if a man were able simply to run a care right up to his boiler house and unload right at the boiler. The regulation to which I have referred places *a handicap on manufacturers in Canada. I hope the Government will take into serious consideration the advisability of allowing .all manufacturers who use coial some abatement in the demurrage charges that are made, so that they can hold a car for at least seven or ten days at one dollar per car per day, rwhich i.s a fair and reasonable charge, instead of penalizing them .from $7 to $12 per day. T know companies that have to pay to the railways as much as $700 or $800 a month for demurrage. The Steel Company of Canada, if they have cars standing with coal, and especially coke, must pay |a very considerable amount. I cannot see why there should be any demurrage charge against coke at all, because those t^ho are using coke or know anything about it know that coke cannot be unloaded a second time, because the loss would be so great from the coke crumbling into dust. It must therefore be unloaded direct from the oar into the furnace. I hope that the Minister of Marine will take into consideration the advisability 
of having half-a-dozen colliers built. I feel satisfied they could handle coal very much more cheaply. We could get Nova Scotia .coal up to Belleville, Kingston, Port Hope, Cobourg, and all these other places and unload it alongside the dock by means of the .elevators these colliers carry. I hope the Government will do everything in their power to see that the situation is relieved.
Another thing we must consider is an embargo on eoal going to Europe. Normally we give the United States just as much soft coal as they give us. In times past the great hulk of the soft coal for the Eastern States used to come from Nova Scotia. A large quantity of Nova Scotia coal still goes there, but not in as large a quantity as it should. Whether the United States is endeavouring to reach the point where they will not have to use Canadian co.aI; I do not know,. but the fact remains that they are compelling a lot of our coal to find a market through Atlantic ports in Europe and South America. Whether that is due to lack of effort on our part, or to diversion of Nova Scotia coal to Europe, 'I do not know, but I .am satisfied that the Board of Railway Commissioners will take that matter ini hand.
The .situation so far as Ontario is concerned is very acute. Some of the large concerns in Toronto and Hamilton will have to cease operations unless the .situation is relieved, thereby throwing out of employment thousands of men. That is going to. cause great trouble this fall and winter. The cost of living is so great that a working man cannot afford to lose a single. day'6 work, and it is necessary that we do everything in out power to see thao the coal supply is maintained. I hope to .see the diay when this country will be independent of any other country for its coal supply, and when we will have sufficient coal and adequate facilities for handling it. I think one of the most cogent reasons .for having built by the Government a small number of ships of the kind I have mentioned is that it would enable us to supply our own people largely with coal from Nova Scotia. The minute we start bringing this coal to Hamilton, you will find the owners of bituminous coal in the Southern States, rise up in their wrath .against the United States Government and demand .a free market. The best market for 'the United States anthracite coial mines is Canada. We use proportionately more hard coal than do the Americans. Many anthracite coal mines in the United States .are standing idle to-day because they have no orders. Tne control

of coal by the United States Government has enabled the coal mine owners in the United States to establish what is known [DOT]as a trust, and they are bound to shove up [DOT]the price of coal, and create an .artificial [DOT]shortage. It is not a real shortage, but an artificial one. A friend of mine who was in the coal region recently told me there was .ample coal available there, and that they were desirous of getting all the orders they could, but the United States Government had interfered so seriously with the course of ewents so far as the coal of Pennsylvania and Ohio was concerned that it looked as though there w,a.s going to be a complete jam up in that part of the country. Whether they are going to try iand freeze us out this (winter, I do not know, but it looks very much like it.


Mr. BUREAU:: There will be a real shortage if they freeze us out.


John Allister Currie: There was a real shortage last year, and it looks as if there will be a real shortage for us this year; whether it is a real shortage for them or not, I do not know. They are not very anxious to have our money as it is at .such a big discount, as our people are all buying goods in the United States which they formerly used to buy in Canada. I understand that the balance of trade with the United States runs against this country to something like $90,000,000 a month. It is only a question of a couple of years or so until we will owe the United States so much money that we shall have to surrender ourselves over to them, or go to war and repudiate our debt, because we will not be able to pay it.
I am a high protectionist. I do not wish to go into any discussion of that subject to-day, but 'I am sorry to see all three parties in .this House so anxious to buy goods from Uncle iSam. We are giving him a balance of $90,000,000 a month to enable him to cripple us more and more every day.


Mr. LABOR:: It would be well to buy coal from him at all events.


John Allister Currie: He says our dollar is no good. I trust the Government will take into consideration the advisability of adopting some method whereby we can get Nova Scotia coal more cheaply. We cannot get it by rail because the cost is prohibitive. We cannot buy coal from the West and bring it by rail further east than Fort William at a reasonable cost. The rest of the distance must be covered by water, and we must provide water transportation. What are we going to do in that respect? Let us decide, and do it quickly.
Resolution reported.
Sir ROBERT BORDEN thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 217, to amend The Railway Act, 1919. He said: lit might be desirable for me to read the exact terms of the Bill in order that hon. gentlemen may be acquainted with them at the earliest possible moment. The Bill is as follows:
The Railway Act, 1919, chapter sixty-eight of the statutes of 1919, is amended by inserting the following section as 71 A immediately after section seventy-one thereof:-
"71 A (1) The hoard shall have power to do and authorize such acts and things and to miake from time to time such orders and regulations as the board, by reason of real or apprehended scarcity of coal or other fuel supplies in Canada, may deem necessary or advisable for the provision of such supplies and for the distribution, control and disposition thereof.
"(2) Without restricting the generality of the foregoing terms, it is declared that the powers hereinbefore conferred upon the board shall extend to the trading in and to the exportation, importation, production and manufacture of coal and other fuel supplies.
"(3) This section shall continue in force until the last day of the next succeeding session of Parliament and no longer."
I have read the Act in its exact terms in order that hon. members of this House may understand that it is proposed to confer upon the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada very wide powers in this respect. As the Act was originally prepared, the approval of the Governor in Council was made a condition precedent to the exercise of these powers by the board. But, on the whole, we thought it desirable to eliminate that provision and to ask the House to confer upon the board the powers which I have enumerated, without any restriction or reservation except such as may be found in those provisions of the statute which enable an appeal to be asserted, in respect of all matters, to the Governor in Council, from any judgment or decision of the board.
May I add just one word, in view of what has been said by my hon. friend from Sim-coe (Mr. Currie), as to the attitude of the authorities of the United States to this country in connection with coal supplies. I have been informed bv the late Fuel Controller Mr. Magrath, bv those who were associated with him. and by other persons who are familiar with these matters, that no attitude could have been more friendly or considerate toward the peoole of this country in resnect of the needs of this country, than that which was exhibited by

the Government and the people of the United States during the time we were short of coal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I made the same statement the other clay, but I desire to repeat and emphasize it now in view of what my hon. friend '(Mr. Currie) has said in that regard.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: What is the advantage of surrendering over to this body the authority of the Governor in Council? I must confess that I am not enamoured of the principle of handing over such an authority to commissioners. Suppose anything of an extraordinary character occurred; suppose something went amiss with the commission and it got into trouble; suppose it found itself in such difficulties as would render effective action on its part impossible; ithe people of the country would undoubtedly demand that the Government should step in and disregard the commission. I certainly think that the Government should retain control in this matter and that the principle of responsible government should be adhered to.


Robert Laird Borden: If I might say a word or two further, with the permission of the House, I would point out to my hon. friend (Sir Sam Hughes) that the Board of Railway Commissioners exercise at the present time powers of an exceedingly wide and comprehensive nature with regard to the whole question of transportation in Canada. These matters are dealt with by the board independently of any suggestion or action on the part of the Government. There is, however, reserved in the statute which I have mentioned an appeal to the Governor in Council from any judgment or decision of the board. During the course of my experience, extending over nine years, I do not recall an instance in which we have reversed the decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners. We may sometimes have sent back the case for further consideration on the part of the board. These questions have usually arisen in respect of administrative n atters as to which the board was equipped with an organization such as was not possessed by the Government, an organization of experts upon whose advice the board would naturally depend. And, therefore, we always took the ground that unless some very clear case was submitted to us, unless it was perfectly 
obvious that the board had overlooked some consideration, or unless the board had omitted to give a hearing to persons who were interested, we ought not to attempt to substitute our judgment for the judgment of the board. I think that principle has worked very well in practice. Parliament was willing sixteen years ago to confer these very wide powers upon the Board of Railway Commissioners, subject to the appeal that I have mentioned, and there seems to be good reason why we should not bring the Governor in Council into the matter at all, hut simply - leave the statute to its operation; and in that case the Governor in Council will possess the same authority by way of appeal that, it already possesses in respect of the powers which were committed to the hoard in the Act as it was first approved by Parliament.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the
Prime Minister to say that the right of appeal had been removed.


Robert Laird Borden: No, the right of appeal exists in the statute at present. 1 have explained that in very few cases, if any, was the power of the Government ever exercised by reversing the judgments or decision of the board. At the moment I cannot recall any such case. I said, further, that the House would be safe in committing these powers to the board with the same reservation of the right to appeal to the Governor in Council as that which now exists.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In ordinary circumstances I
would ceitainly agree with my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Sir Sain Hughes). No one likes to surrender to any outside commissioner the authority that resides in the Government but at the present time, in view of the emergency which exists and which might become more serious as time goes on, I think it is only a proper course to take to see that an independent commission-which after all has given satisfaction to the Canadian people at large since its inception-should be empowered to deal with this situation. I am not afraid that the Government will suffer from any lack of coal during the m xt few months if we have a general elect on. I think the Government will have an ample supply of heat in case of an appeal to the people, but I want to keep the home fires burning in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: When shall this Bill be,
read the second time?


Robert Laird Borden: Now, if hon.
gentlemen have no objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Proceed.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Bill be read the second time.
Motion agTeed to, Bill 'read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On clause 1-Powers of Board of Railway Commissioners with respect to coal and other fuel supplies.


Jacques Bureau: I saw a draft of the Bill, which said, " with the consent of the Governor in Council". Is that the only change now?


Robert Laird Borden: That is the cully change.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: What provision is there in this amendment or in the general Act for the full enforcement of the decrees of the Board of Railway Commissioners? As a matter of fact, is there in the Act, as it now exists, power in the commission to inforce the decrees and to see that they are carried out?


Robert Laird Borden: The power conferred upon the Board of Railway Commissioners by this Bill are, in my judgment, of so wide and comprehensive a character, that regulations or orders made by the board will have the force of law.


William Findlay Maclean: I have heard it stated in this House before that cases have arisen which showed that the board lacked any real power of enforcing its decrees. I have frequently pointed out .in this House .that, .although from time to time we legis.-late in this direction and appoint commissions of this character, we do not make the legislation sufficiently strong to ensure the enforcement of the regulations which those commissions may make. In the United States, in all important measures of this kind, they provide not only that a commission shall have the power to do so and so but that it shall be the duty of the Attorney General of the United States-and 1 think the same ought to be the case in this country-to enforce the Act. All the powers of the board itself ought to be clearly defined so that there would be no
mistake as to its authority to enforce its decrees and orders.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall take into consideration the suggestion of my hon. friend and get in touch with the chairman of the board to ascertain whether, in his judgment-he is. conversant with the whole matter-any additional provision should be inserted. If it should be deemed necessary that provision could possibly be inserted during its passage through the Senate.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


INCREASE IN JUDGES' SALARIES.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. CHARLES DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved that the House go into committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend the Judges Act, chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide:-
1.	That paragraph (a) of section 2 be amended to provide that "judge" as applied to a Superior Court included the Chief Justice and the President, and as applied to County Courts includes a junior judge.
2.	That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall be increased to the following amounts :-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of Canada	$15,000
"(b) Five puisne judges, each. .	12,000
3.	That the salaries of the judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada shall be increased to the following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The President of the Exchequer Court of Canada.. .. $10,000 "(b) One puisne judge	 9,000'
and that there be only one puisne judge of the said Court.
4. That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Ontario shall be increased to the following amounts:-
,	Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice	of	Ontario	$10,000
"(b) Four Justices of Appeal,
each	 9,000
"(c) The Chief Justice of the Exchequer	 10,000
"(d) The Chief Justice of the Common Pleas	 210,000
"(e)" Twelve judges of the High
Court Division,	each..	..	9,000
and that upon a vacancy occurring in the office of the Chief Justice of the Exchequer Division or in the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas the salary of such Chief Justice shall cease and the number of salaries for the judges of the High Court shall be increased to thirteen, and after both of the said offices have become vacant, the salaries of the judges of the High Court Division shall be as follows:-*
Per annum.
"(c) The Chief Justice of the High
Court	$10,000
"(d) Thirteen judges of the High
Court Division, each..	..	9,000
[Stage Direction]
5. That the salaries of the judges of the King's Bench of the Superior Court of the province of Quebec shall be increased to the following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
King's Bench	$10,000
"(b) Eleven puisne judges of the Court of the King's Bench,
each	 9,000
"(c) The Chief Justices of the
Superior Court	 10,000
"(d) The puisne judge of the Superior Court who is appointed by the Governor in Council to perform the duties of Chief Justice in the District as constitued for the Court of King's Bench sitting in appeal within which the Chief
Justice does not reside, Montreal or Quebec, as the
case may be	 10,000
(e) Thirty-five puisne judges of
the Superior Court, each. 9,000
"Provided, however, that a judge of a Superior Court shall not be entitled to receive any addition to his present salary unless he actually resides at or in the immediate vicinity of Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke or Three Rivers, as the case may be, as required by article 3076 of the Revised Statutes of 1909, of the province of Quebec, as enacted by section 41 [DOT] of chapter 79 of the statutes of 1920, of the said province; and provided further that this provision shall come into operation upon and after a day to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
6. That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia shall be increased to the following amounts- .
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
Court	$10,000
"(b) The Judge in Equity ..	..	9,000
"(c) Five puisne judges of the
Court, each	 9,000
7.. That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of New Brunswick shall be increased to the following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of New
Brunswick	$10,000
"(b) Two puisne judges of the
Court of Appeal, each..	..	9,000
"(c) The Chief Justice of the
King's Bench Division..	..	10,000
"(d) Three puisne judges of the
King's Bench Division, each	9,000
8. That the salaries of the judges of the Court of Appeal and of the Court of King's Bench of Manitoba shall be increased to the following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
Court of Appeal	$10,000
"(b) Four puisne judges of the
said Court, each	 9,000
"(c) The Chief Jutice of the Court
of King's Bench	 10,000
"(d) Five puisne judges of the
said Court, each	 9,000
9. That the salaries of the judges of the Court of Appeal and of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall be increased to the following amounts:-

Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
Court of Appeal	$10,000
'(b) Four Justices of Appeal, each.	9,000
"(c) The Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court	 10,000
"(d) Five puisne judges of the
Supreme Court, each..	..	9,000
10. That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island shall be increased to the following amount:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
Court	  $10,000
"(b) One assistant judge, being also Master of the Rolls in
Chancery	 9,000
"(c) One assistant judge, being
also Vice-Chancellor..	. .	9,000
11. That the salaries of the judges of the Court of Appeal and of His Majesty's Court of King's Bench of Saskatchewan shall be increased to the following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of Saskatchewan if he is also the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, and, if not, the Chief Justice of the Court
of Appeal	$10,000
"(b) Three puisne judges of the
Court of Appeal,	each	.	.	9,000
"(c) The Chief Justice of the
Court of King's	Bench.	.	.	.	10,000
"(d) Five puisne judges of the Court of King's Bench, each	 9,000
12. That the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Alberta shall be increased to Jthe following amounts:-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of the
Court	 $10,000
"(b) Eight puisne judges of the
Court, each	 9,000
13.	That on the coming into force of the Judicature Act passed by the Legislature of Alberta in 1919, and upon and after a day to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council, the salaries of the judges of the Supreme Court of Alberta shall be as follows :-
Per annum.
"(a) The Chief Justice of Alberta $10,000
"(b) Four Justices of Appeal, each 9,000 "(c) The Chief Justice of the
Trial Division.. ..	..	10,000
"(d) Five Justices of the Supreme
Court of Alberta, each . .	9,000
14.	That the salary of the judge of the territorial Court of the Yukon Territory shall be increased to $7,000 per annum.
15.	That the Governor in Council may for each fiscal year pay for expenses of travelling and living while in attendance at a sitting of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, a sum not exceeding $3,000 to a member of His Majesty's Privy Council who is eligible to be a member of the said Judicial Committee in respect of holding of having beld judicial office in Canada and who attends a sitting of the said Judicial Committee as a member thereof.
16.	That every judge of any circuit, county or district court in whose county or district thert is a city or town with a population of forty thousand people or over shall -be paid one

thousand dollars per annum in addition to his present salary.
17.	That the provision of subsection 3 of section 27 of the said Act as to taxes and deductions shall not apply to any judge whose salary is increased by the present Act, or whose salary was increased by chapter 59 of the Statutes of 1919, and who accepts or has accepted such increase, and that the salaries and retiring allowances of judges appointed after the seventh day of July, 1919, and of all judges accepting any increase of salary under the proposed Act or accepting or having accepted any increase of salary under chapter 59 of the Statutes of 1919, shall be taxable and subject to the taxes imposed by The Income War Tax Act, 1917, and the amendments thereto.
18.	That no judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Provincial Superior Court shall receive any remuneration in addition to his judicial salary for acting as Administrator or Deputy Governor General, or for any duty or service, whether judicial or executive, which he may hereafter be required to perform for or on behalf of the Government of Canada or the Government of any province thereof.
19.	That every judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Exchequer Court of Canada, or of any Provincial Superior Court who may be nominated for the purpose by the Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall execute without additional remuneration any commission or enquiry for which he may be appointed as Commissioner under any authority in that behalf exercisable by the Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor in Council including the discharge of the duty of arbitrator in any case in which he may be named to act by the competent authority. Provided, however, that any such judge while acting as Commissioner or arbitrator at the nomination of the Governor in Council shall be entitled to his moving or transportation expenses and living allowance at the rate provided by section 18 of the said Act, and such judge when employed under the authority of the Lieutenant Governor in Council may be paid by the Lieutenant Governor in Council his moving or transportation expenses and a living allowance not exceeding the amount which he would be entitled to under the said section 18.
He said:	I desire to make a modification in section 16 and I therefore beg to move:
That the words "in whose county or district there is a city or town with a population of 40,000 people or over," be stricken out.
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee on the resolution as amended, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. CRERAR:: What are the present
salaries of the county judges?


Mr. DOHERTY:: The present salary of
the County Court judges is $4,000. We are making it $5,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Does that apply all over the provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: All over the provinces.


Mr. LANCTOT:: Before this resolution
passes I desire to offer a few observations with respect to it. I do not complain so much about raising the salaries of judges, but I would like to see provision made in the Bill which is to be founded upon this resolution for contributions by the judges themselves towards the pensions which they are to receive. I noticed in the press the recent death of an old judge in the province of Quebec. He was appointed: to the Bench in 1873, but in 1888 was retired on a pension, which he had been in enjoyment of for the last thirty-two years and towards which he had not contributed even one cent, as is required in the case of pensions to other classes of the community. We do not see such pensions granted elsewhere in Canada after only fifteen years of service. In other cases when pensions are granted, the beneficiaries must themselves contribute towards the pension fund. Are we to consider that the lawyers of the country are to be especially favoured in that regard? The particular judge to whom I refer was appointed at a salary of $4,000 per annum and therefore received during the course of his fifteen years' .service the sum of $60,000, in round figures. He was a pensioner of the country for thirty-two years and during that period drew $85,354, so that from the time he was elevated to the Bench to the period of his death he received in all $145,354. It is not only the salary which a judge receives when he is discharging his duties, but the pension which he draws upon retirement, that we must take into consideration. It is not necessary for a judge to have reached old age to be retired; it is very common for persons in this House and out of it to be looking for judicial positions, and consequently the retirement of a judge sometimes takes place before considerations of age or health demand it. Frequently when a member of Parliament who is a lawyer fails to be re-elected to Parliament he is placed on the Bench. We then witness the spectacle of politicians going here and there through the country and saying to a judge, "You have served fifteen years, why not resign? We have another man waiting to take your job." That practice will be easier to follow in future than it has been in the past because of this legislation. I know judges who were appointed in the province of Quebec about the year 1905 at a salary of $5,000, and the passage of the legislation to be founded upon this resolution will make it possible for those judges to draw a pension of $6,000. It would be foolish for them to

remain on the Bench hereafter because they will get 'more 'by retiring than by staying. What will be the result of such legislation? For the purposes of illustration I will put a case to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in this connection:	Supposing a judge should follow the example of the Minister of Justice, and retire from the Bench, and offer himself as a candidate at a parliamentary election and be returned? Supposing that man becomes Minister of Justice? He will then receive a pension of $6,000, the parliamentary indemnity of $4,000 and the salary of a minister of the 'Crown, $10,000. That would be a very agreeable situation for any man to find himself in. As I say, I would not object at all to the pension if the judge, like the civil servants for example, contributed so much every year towards the pension fund. Personally I have made provision for my old age; I am paying insurance on my life and when I die, my family will have a few thousand dollars at their disposal. Others should do the same. I do not see why there should be this discrimination in favour of judges, and when the Bill which is to follow this resolution is introduced, I intend to move that the judges be treated in the same way as the rest of the community. While I am on my feet I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question: Supposing a vacancy should occur six months from now in the representation in the Supreme Court of Canada from ithe province of Quebec, can an ex-judge who is receiving' a pension from the state be appointed to replace the gentleman who is retired?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think a person in that position might be appointed, but I do not think he would be entitled to draw a pension as a retired judge while he was actually a judge in office.


Roch Lanctôt: If I understand the
minister such an appointment could be made but my hon. friend does not believe for a moment that the appointee would accept a pension. That being so, when the present Minister of Justice accepted that portfolio he ought not to have continued to have drawn his pension as a retired judge. That is the way in whch I look at the matter and that is how I shall always regard it. If justice is not done to the farmers and the working men of this country in this matter I intend to tour the province of Quebec and tell my fellow citizens what is going on here in Ottawa when both parties combine to enact such bad legislation as

this. At the proper time, after the Bill has been introduced, I propose to move certain amendments giving expression to my views.


Mr. CROTHERS:: I would like to ask the Minister of Justice upon what ground it ie proposed to amend clause 16 under which it was proposed that an additional $1,000 per annum should be granted to the judge of'any circuit, county or district court in which there is a city or town with a population of forty thousand or over.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The clause which appeared in the original resolution did make that distinction. But we have since found, by representations coming from numerous quarters, that the distinction sought to be made would not operate fairly, that the test of there being a city of forty thousand population in that county was not *a fair test of the importance of the 'business to be transacted or of the amount of judicial work required to be done. I may say that it has been pointed out to me, and it is beyond dispute, I understand, that in all of the western provinces, particularly in British Columbia in very many counties there do not happen to be cities, but while there may be in those counties a smaller number of cases to be decided, it imposes upon the judges who hold office in them the obligation of covering a very extensive territory, frequently under conditions of travel which are not of the most agreeable kind, and that those judges compensate at least for the difference in quantity of work by the added arduousness of the conditions under which it has to be performed. Coming to the other provinces, even in the province of Ontario it has been brought to my attention that in quite a few cases the judges in counties or districts where there does not happen to be a city of 40,000 * inhabitants have as large a burden, in some instances, as in districts where there is such a city. Moreover, it has been found that in some of these counties containing a city of 40,000 inhabitants the judges in adjoining counties necessarily have to share the burden, and it would manifestly be unfair under those circumstances that there should be a discrimination in the salary. Therefore, taking it all round, it seemed to be impossible to draw a line that would do perfect justice.
Apart from that I think if hon. members will reflect for a moment they will feel that taking the County Court judges as a whole this is perhaps ,a fair consideration. Their salaries are to-day but $4,000. Of course, their work may be more or less onerous,

but in any case it is work to which the judges have to devote their whole time, and leaving the salaries at that figure might perhaps invite comparisons with other allowances from which it would appear that there was not perhaps altogether quite a fair 'balancing of the different conditions. In any event, I may say that the principal reason is that we find ourselves face to face with the fact that such differences operate unjustly, and it was impossible to find a line of demarcation that would operate equitably. Therefore it appeared to us in view of the very large number of County Court judges, with regard to whom I do not think it can be suggested that $5,000 is too large a salary, that even if it should happen that taking in the whole there might be places where the work would not be adequate to justify that salary, still on the whole balance we would be doing the right thing by granting the increase.
Then there is another feature to be considered; it is undesirable to discriminate between judges. A judge is a judge-it is the position. It may happen that a judge is appointed to a district where there is a little less work than in other districts, but that is not because he selected that district. Whether the work be heavy or light, his whole time is given to it, and if he is a man fit and capable to be a judge in any court and to do honour to his office, I think everybody will agree that he would be able to earn at least $5,000, if not more.
It has been suggested that in the province of Ontario, with the large number of County Court judges, there were some with not adequate work as compared with the judges in the other provinces. In that connection I w'ould point out, that under recent legislation, we are steadily proceeding to decrease the number, so that the judges who at present number seventy in the County Court will ultimately be reduced to fifty. Provision is made for not filling vacancies as they occur, and a large number of counties which had two judges have been reduced to one judge. That process of reduction is going on with fair Tapidity.


William Findlay Maclean: Could not that process of gradual reduction be accelerated by legislation on the part of the Provincial Government?
Mr. DOHERTY; It is their legislation which has produced that result.


William Findlay Maclean: It is going very slowly. It needs an accelerator.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would remind my
hon. friend that every judge in office is a judge for the rest of his life, and the only way in which the Ontario legislature could speed up the operation of its statute would be to terminate the judges' lives at an earlier date than nature did.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The reason given by
the minister that under the clause as it now stands some County Court judges would receive a larger salary than others does not seem to have regard to the fact that some County Court judges in Ontario receive more than the ordinary salary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not from the Dominion.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: One or two points
have been omitted which I think should be mentioned. We have in Ontario something over seventy of these County Court judges.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just seventy now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In many of the counties there are two judges, a senior and a junior; and those of us who come from Ontario know that it is no exaggeration to say that in many of the counties there is not half enough work to keep one judge busy. We have junior judges in Ontario who do not pretend to do anything except for three or four days during each month. Last year their salary was increased by $1,000; they are with us again this year. Now those judges have other sources of income. There may be a few exceptions, but in the great majority of cases the Government of the province appoints the senior County Court judge also a judge of the Surrogate Court, for which he receives fees to the amount of about $1,000. I think the Government commuted those fees in some cases a year or two ago. If I remember rightly, the senior County Court judges Surrogate Court fees were fixed at $1,300, and the juniors' at $1,000. But let us put those fees at $1,000; then from other sources I estimate they get $500, that is, for their work in the selection of jurors, the revision of voters' lists, and hearing appeals under the Ditch and Watercourses Act; so that with their salary of $4,000 they are in receipt of about $5,500.
Another point that should be brought to the attention of the committee is that when those judges retire at the age of seventy-five years they receive their full salary during the rest of their lives, even if they have only served five years on the bench. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice

has succeeded or not, but I know that he has endeavoured not to appoint men to the County Court bench older than sixty years. I think, however, there have been many exceptions to that rule. Supposing a man is appointed at sixty, he is bound to retire at seventy-five years of age. At the miximum he serves fifteen years, and as the law now stands he would receive $4,000 a year during the balance of his life. But that retiring allowance applies whenever he retires regardless of his length of service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There will be a clause in the Bill to correct that.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am speaking of the
law as it is now. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice says that he intends to change that condition of affairs. In the case of a Superior Court judge the pension depends upon the number of years he has served on the bench; if he has served for fifteen years he gets a percentage, if for twenty years a larger percentage, and if for twenty-five years a still larger percentage of his salary. But that, of course, does not apply at all to the County Court judges. A few weeks ago I received a letter from a County Court judge saying, " I have served for so many years; I suppose I am not entitled to my full salary?" I had to write him in reply that he was entitled to his full salary, no matter how long he had been on the bench.	.


William Findlay Maclean: By Dominion legislation?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. A County Court judge may retire after he has served thirty years even if he is only sixty. If* he was appointed at the age of thirty and served until he was sixty, he would be entitled to full pay for the rest of his life. He may retire at sixty at full pay, but he is not obliged to retire until he is seventy-five, and then he gets full pay for the rest of his life. It is admitted all around-the minister himself would be the first to admit it-that a great many of these judges are not earning anything like what they are being paid. The time may come when the junior judge will disappear, in which event another will not be appointed in his place, but that may take ten, fifteen or twenty years. I do not believe that the people of Ontario are in favour of this increase.


William Findlay Maclean: If more vigorous legislation in the same direction were passed by the legislature of Ontario, this difficulty would come to an end.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But you cannot by legislation put a man out of his position.


William Findlay Maclean: .You can do something.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You cannot by legislation put out a man who has held a given position for ten, fifteen or twenty years. The procedure of the courts has been fixed by the legislature of the province, and I am bound to say, after an experience of forty years, that legislation has been passed in order that junior judgeships may be given to friends. Are we to give these men another $1,000? In the case of a man who has served only five or ten years, such an increase is entirely unwarranted. I am satisfied that my electors do not approve of it, and I am opposed to it on that ground as well as on personal grounds. With regard to the population provision in the clause as it now stands, take the city of Toronto. Of course, there is more work in Toronto than there is in Ottawa, 'but they have four or five judges in Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: Three, anyway.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think there are four or five; I could name four right now. I do not think that we would be warranted in increasing those salaries. An increase of $1,000 was given only last year. The great majority of the judges, I believe, are perfectly satisfied with their present salary. The only reason I have ever heard for an increase is that judges in the province of Quebec who do the same kind of work but are called Superior Court judges get a larger salary,-$7,000. Since this matter came up a few days ago I have been informed that the judges in the province of Quebec do the County Court work as well as the Superior 'Court work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the Criminal Court work too.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: A deputation which came here a few weeks ago urged that the salaries of County Court judges in Ontario should be increased on the ground that the judges in the province of Quebec who were doing the same kind of work were getting a great deal more. But that does not seem to be true; the judges in the province of Quebec do the High Court as well as the County Court work. That is a good reason why they should be paid more. I do not think it is fair to the ratepayers of this country that we should increase these salaries. Wait until a number of these junior

judges retire. I am sure that many of them get a great deal more than they ever earned as solicitors or barristers.


Mr. PROULX:: I expressed my opinion [DOT]with regard to this matter the other day when the Estimates of the Department of Justice were under consideration, and I have not since changed my mind. I am opposed to the -whole resolution. I believe that in these times of stress, when we have to tax even the necessities of life in order to obtain the necessary revenue, we should not make such increases. The judges should wait a few years until the financial condition of the country show some improvement. 'They are getting very good salaries now, considering the allowances that they receive upon retirement. They are better paid than civil servants in the higher offices whose work is very important and who really work much harder than some of these judges. These civil servants do not get the generous allowances that the judges get, though the civil servants contribute to the superannuation fund while the judges do not. I concur in the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lanctot) that if the judges die before they receive any retiring allowance the amount paid into the fund to which they should contribute could be paid to their families. I cited one case where we had been paying a pension to a judge since 1888 who had never paid a cent to the retirement fund. I repeat that there is a certain class of civil servants who are much more deserving of an increase than the judges are. But it is always the case, Mr. Chairman, that we give to those who do not need and withhold from those who need. There is one class of people who are public servants if they are not civil servants, and who render a great service to this country; I Tefer to the men who carry the mail throughout the country. The rural mail carriers have been receiving a starving allowance. Certainly they are not sufficiently remunerated.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: The judges should carry the mail.


Edmond Proulx: Well, my hon. friend may be derisive, but I tell him that these public servants are very deserving; certainly they are more deserving of consideration than judges who are already receiving sala-ies of $7,000 and $8,000, who receive a very generous retiring allowance, and who do not pay a cent to the superannuation fund as the civil servants do. It is my opinion that the people of this country are not getting a square deal. The time will come
when there will be in Canada a people's party who will give a square deal to all the people, and then there will be
4 p.m. no privileged classes. Now you are going to make all the judges a privileged class. My hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) has mentioned the case of the County Court judges of Ontario. I am of the opinion that there are twice as many County Court judges in Ontario as are needed. In my own district we have two County Court judges while there is not enough work to employ one judge half the time, and II am sure that the same applies to many other districts in the province. These judges get $4,000 and $5,000; the senior judge gets $1,000 from the province, and he gets fees as well, which amount to $500. Legislation was passed in 1919 increasing the number of County Court judges in Ontario, as my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) has said it will take at least fifteen years to eliminate the number that is not required.
I submit that the Government could have waited a few years before making these increases. The plea of the high cost of living is always advanced in favour of increases; but we are not sure that the high cost of living will always prevail as it does to-day. In my opinion we may have very hard times in a few years and the cost of living may topple down. Once these salaries are increased it is practically impossible to reduce them. It is like the indemnities to I he members of the House; once they are increased they can never be decreased.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edmond Proulx: If the high cost of living is the reason for the increase I would have preferred to see the judges, get a bonus. We do not know whether the high cost of living will exist next year or two years hence.


Jacques Bureau: It will be higher.


Edmond Proulx: We do not know. I think that in a few years the inflation that we have to-day will not exist and that prices will be much lower than they are now We have to tax the people on necessities- in fact, upon everything. Water is about the only thing that is left untaxed nowadays, and soon, if increases of all kinds are going to continue, we will have to>
tax water. The people will get tired of this sort of thing and there will arise a People's party, of which the United Farmers' and Labour are already the nucleus. I shall not regret it when a People's party does arise in this country. I think the two old parties have

too often agreed to pass legislation in favour of privileged classes. I consider this legislation is in favour of a privileged class, and I agree with my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that the people of Ontario will not support it.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I would point, out to my hon. friend that we have a People's party in this House already on this side-a people's party that was elected* by an enormous majority in 1917. So my hon. friend need not predict something that has already happened.
I think a pretty good case has* been made out for the readjustment of the pension system for the County Court judges. Beyond that, I do not agree with my hon. friend from West Elgin. On the face of it, the proposition to confine the increase to county judges in districts and counties with cities of a population of 40,000, looks pretty reasonable, hut if we examine it we shall find the grounds are not quite as strong as they appear at first sight. If we have too many judges in this country and some are not employed more than half their time, that is* the fault of this Government.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The fault of the Provincial Government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Why should not this Government co-operate with the Provincial Government and group certain counties for judicial purposes? Some counties have already been grouped. Why .should we not group other counties? If this Government made representations to a Provincial Government that they had laws upon their statute book that resulted in a waste of public money, I do not think any Provincial Government would resist an appeal from this Government for the reduction of judges to the number actually required. In some cases, as my hon. friend from* Prescott says, there are two men employed where there is not enough work for one.
On the other hand, there are counties where it takes a judge practically every day of the year to perform the duties of his office. That is a disparity that is not the fault of the county judge; it is the fault of the existing legislation. I have been making some inquiries and I find that the amount that is given by the province to judges for Surrogate fees and that kind of thing is over $1,000. That includes the revision of assessments and voters' lists, and in our city that is an important matter involving a great deal of work, the hearing of appeals under the Ditches and Water Courses Act, school arbitrations, and many

other duties prescribed by statute, in the province of Ontario at all events. One county judge, now passed away, I believe, estimated that there were 167 different duties imposed on county judges by the Statutes of Ontario. Some of these, I presume, would be of a very minor character, or the judges could not perform their work at all. The revision of assessments, the revision of voters' lists, the hearing of Ditches and Water Courses appeals, school arbitrations and that kind of thing, in addition to their other duties, keep the judges in most of the counties fully employed, if they perform their duties properly.
Our Superior Gourt judges have a vacation of three months. Not many of the county judges have a vacation of that length. There are many counties in Ontario where it would be impossible to get the work done if the judge took a three months' holiday. In the city of Toronto there are three county judges. They have opportunities of adding to their incomes which are not within the reach of the average judge. They sit on arbitrations of various kinds and on boards of conciliation. One of them sits on the Police Commission, which adds $1,000 or more to his salary. So the judges in the big centres have opportunities of adding to their incomes which are not within the reach of other judges. I think the amendment proposed by the Minister of Justice striking out the limitation regarding 40,000 population should be adopted. I think we should first, eliminate, as we have arranged to do and as will be done in process of time, all the junior county judges, except in the big centres, Next, we should group the counties, so as not to have two* judges sitting for the county of Prescott, for instance, if there is not enough work to keep one judge employed.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Half the counties of Ontario are in the same position.


Joseph Archambault: There are no
lawyers in Prescott.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: If half the counties in
Ontario are in the same position, that strengthens my argument. We should not put these men on a salary which is inadequate, simply because we have created a lot of sinecures all over the country. What we should do is to fix the boundaries of the districts in such a way that the judges will have enough work to do. The county judge in a county town is one of the leaders in his town. I venture to say that nothing is started in the way of a subscription where the county judge is not approached

first. He has many demands upon him, not quite as heavy perhaps as the members of this House, 'but still very considerable demands, confined, of course, to his locality. These are considerations that we ought to take into account. The county judges have to perform duties not involving large sums of money, but involving the liberties and the rights of a subject, and in that respect their duties are as important as those of the Superior Court judges. Furthermore, they try more cases, and their time is more fully occupied. I think they are entitled to the 'increase that is proposed by this legislation, and I heartily support the Minister of Justice in his amendment.


Mr. MACKIE (East Edmonton):: I want to eay a few words on account of the remarks which have been made toy the hon. member for Prescott. It may be true that some evils exist in the province of Ontario, but there are other provinces besides Ontario. If 'there are evils in Ontario, let piy hon. friend first clean his own stables, instead of arguing from the particular to *the general. In the province of Al'berta jwe have district 'Court judges who have to travel around the country. A district court judge will leave the city of Edmonton and go from place to place on the Canadian Northern for two hundred miles, hearing cases. Other judges 'travel North to Fort Murray, a distance of 300 or 400 miles. Others go from Edmonton to Peace River Crossing, a distance of 380 miles, and then toy boat or team to Vermillion, another 300 miles. These are inconveniences with which the judges have to put up for a salary of $3,500.
It is .all very well for my hon. friend to .say he is going to attend to the creation of a People's party composed of the United Farmers and Labour, which party will rule better than either of the present parties. If toy Labour he means those people who. have endeavoured to empty the jails of Manitoba for the purpose of throwing on [DOT]society men who have been condemned by their peers, he is quite at liberty to .associate himself with that party, but I shall not do so.	[DOT]
A particular case like Ontario's should not govern all the other provinces. The judges ..are the only body of imen who stand between the people and the executive, and their position should be such as to command respect. If men have been appointed to the bench 'by reason of their political activities, and they did not deserve to be appointed, it is 'because the system of 'appointment is wrong. Because 276
there may be oases of this kind, every other appointment that has been made in the .country should not be condemned. If men .have been appointed to the bench who .should not have been .appointed, it is principally because the salaries of the judges Jiarve 'been .such as to prevent other men from accepting the positions. I hope the House will pass the resolution as it is.


Mr. FRASER:: As one who waited upon different members of the Government to have clause 16 amended, I think it is my duty to say a few words in support of the .amendment. The judge of the county of Welland has every hour of his time occupied. He was .also chairman of the local branch of the Patriotic Fund .where he is doing excellent work, for which he got no remuneration, and served also on the Victory Loan 'Committee. I consider it .a shame that. Judge Livingstone .should have had to .work tor the past number of yeans at the palary he has 'been receiving. I strongly support the amendment.


Mr. FORTIER (Labelle):: I desire to say a few words in regard to this resolution, not from a general standpoint but rather with reference to its local application. As for the resolution itself, I am heartily in favour of its proposal, for I think it is a measure of justice which should have been put into force many years ago. The increase is perfectly justified by present circumstances, and while it will be welcomed by the judges themselves I have no doubt the people of the country will be generous enough to approve it. The resolution does justice to the judges of the province of Quebec, and particularly to those judges who are known as rural district judges. This term, in my opinion, is really a misnomer, because outside of the districts of Quebec and Montreal the population of other districts is urban as well as rural, and the judges in those places should receive the same salary as judges in cities. I want to direct the minister's attention particularly to paragraph 5 of the resolution with reference to residence of judges. I have a large practice in the Ottawa valley, especially in the city of Hull, and I may inform the minister that representations have been made to the proper authorities to provide that in the future the judge who administers justice in this district should have his residence in Hull, as was the case in the past. There is a proviso to clause 5 which states that a judge of a Superior Court shall not be entitled to receive any addition to his present salary-I am speaking of Que-



bee-unless he actually resides in the immediate vicinity of Montreal, Quebec, Sherbrooke, or Three Rivers. I think that the same conditions that apply to Sherbrooke and Three Rivers apply to Hull, and I would suggest to the minister that Hull might be included in this list and be given a resident judge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I cannot do that because it will not fit in with the legislation of Quebec. If I said that there should be a judge resident in Hull I would be providing for a judge who is not provided for by provincial legislation. The hon. gentleman must realize that we have to take the courts as they are constituted by the provinces, and we cannot create new conditions as to where men shall reside. That is a matter entirely for the province. Speaking as .an individual, I appreciate the motives that inspire the hon. member, and as an individual I should be glad to do whatever I could to dispose the proper authorities to take my hon. friend's point of view. It will not, however, do foT me to put in a provision about Hull, because the judge must live where the legislature of his province says he should live. We cannot make him live anywhere else.


Hyacinthe-Adélard Fortier: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: That limitation in regard to population of forty thousand has been struck out, and the resolution as it now stands applies to all County Court judges.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: That means, I take it,
that the judges of Nova .Scotia will get an
increase?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: If that is the case I
have nothing further to say.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I move to amend paragraph 18 by adding the following words:
"Without prejudice to the rights of any Judge "under the provisions of any provincial statute now in force."
The clause as worded compels the judges in future to perform without remuneration any judicial or executive duties that they may be called upon to perform by the Dominion or the province, but there was no intention to destroy the specific statutory provisions already in force in the provinces, and the words are added to make that intention clear.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Rt. Hon. Mr. DOHERTY thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 218, to amend the Judges' Act.
Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill is not printed for circulation as yet but its contents are absolutely, with one or two additions, me contents of the resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Do we understand that the Bill is exactly in accordance with the resolution?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, except that there are two or three sections added. As a condition of this increase the judge in future will be bound to give gratuitously their services on all commissions to which they may be appointed by this * Government or the Provincial Governments. In the second place, as a condition of this increase the salaries and emoluments of all judges accepting it become liable to taxation and likewise to fall under the taxation already imposed by the Income Tax Act. Thirdly, there is a provision-and that meets some of the criticisms that were made-that, as regards all judges who may hereafter be appointed, section 20 of the Judges' Act, which establishes a certain scale and entitles judges to retire with a full salary at certain dates and under certain conditions, is repealed. As regards judges actually in office now, any of them who become entitled under that section to retire with full salary will be entitled only to full salary as it stands to-day. This increase will not be taken into consideration in computing the amount to which they shall be entitled. I think these are the three provisions in addition to those in the resolution and it will be observed that all these additions. are restrictive instead of extending advantages to the judges.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the new
legislation in regard to judges giving their services apply to commissions already in existence or only to those that are to come hereafter?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If it is agreeable to the hon. members perhaps the details could be explained to better advantage in the committee.


Roch Lanctôt: I object to the second
reading as I have not seen .the Bill and I want to see it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Does the hon. gentleman object to the second reading?
276i


Roch Lanctôt: I want to discuss the
Bill on the second reading, and I want the Bill discussed in committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand the
hon. gentleman wants to discuss it in committee?


Roch Lanctôt: I must read the Bill
before I am able to discuss it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion must either parry or stand.	(


Roch Lanctôt: Stand.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Allister Currie: I think the hon. gentleman does not quite understand. The .second geading now is a purely formal .matter. The Bill will be 'brought down and printed and we can go into committee -and discuss it.


Roch Lanctôt: That is all right. '


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The second reading involves the principle of the Bill. If the hon. gentleman presses his objection the Bill cannot no.w be read a second time. Do I understand the hon. gentleman to object?


Roch Lanctôt: I do not see what advantage it would be to the Government 'to pass .the second Teading of this Bill now. It can .be done at .another .sitting of the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I .must ask the hon. gentleman specifically if he objects to the second reading now?


Roch Lanctôt: Yes, I do.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would return me the Bill I gave him as it is the only copy I have to give ito the printer.
. Motion for second reading .allowed to stand.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD.
[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill 206 respecting the Canadian Wheat Board.
; He .said: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into committee on this Bill I desire to maJke a statement which I think is due not only 'to the House tout is also due in fairness to some gentlemen outside of the .House. It is in reference to .a discussion which took place when we were upon the resolution which formed the basis for this Bill. The hon. member for Chiateauguay-*Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) read a certain .statement made by Dr. Magill in an address
[Stage Direction]
delivered to the Winnipeg (Grain Exchange and drew certain inferences therefrom. I think it is fair to Dr. iMagill, to the House *and to the 'Government that 1 should make a short statement in reference to it. At page 4236 of Hansard the hon. member for [DOT]Cbateauguiay-Huntingdon is reported as follows:
I have in [my hand a copy of a speech delivered hy Dr. Magill explaining to the members of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange the results of his mission to London, England, from which J quote:
"I took the opportunity of calling at Mr. Harris' office.
. iHe told me that he had' been at the conference in Ottawa, that he knew all that had gone on, and had talked with grain men, and that he came back to London believing that it was his duty to sell Canadian wheat to England and to neutral countries. Mark you, after the market had been opened, Mr. Harris, chairman of the War Trade Mission, believed it was his duty to sell, Canadian wheat to England and to .neutral countries. He also told me that a cablegram had been sent by Sir Robert Borden to iMr. 'Arthur Sifton, telling him among other things to sell fifty to seventy-five million bushels pf our wheat."
, The hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon proceeds:
, (Now, did Mr. Arthur Sifton, acting on the instructions of the (Prime Minister, sell 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 bushels of the Canadian crop before it was riipe or before is was ready to go on the market? That is the statement that was made publicly to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and it has not been denied.
I want to call the 'attention of 'the hon. member for Cbateauguay-Huntingdon and the House as well to the fact that whereas the text of that quotation and its assertion is that Mr. Harris, in the first place, believed he came back to England with authority to sell, and in the second place that a cable had been sent to Mr. Arthur Sifton telling him amongst other things 'to sell 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 bushels, the statement made by the hon. member for Ohateau-guay-Huntingdon goes further than that. After asking the question " now did Mr. Arthur Sifton acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister" (and so on to the world market quoting the words).
He says:
That is the statement that was made publicly to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and it has not been denied.
That is that Mr. Arthur Sifton, acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister to sell, did sell 50,000,000 ot 75,000,000 bushels of the Canadian crop before it was ripe or before it was ready to go on the market. I think there is the distinction between what was actually said in English- George Foster.]
land and the statement in the last paragraph. There the definite statement was made that that grain was actually sold.
Mr.   BOSS@: Will my hon. friend allow me?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Yes.


Mr. ROBB:: With all due respect to my right hon. friend I did not make that statement, and if he will read Hansard again he will notice what I said. " Now, did Mr. Arthur Sifton sell? It was an inquiry I made of the Government.


George Green Foster: Very well, I will go over my hon. friend's remarks again if he will be good enough to pay attention. The words of my hon. friend were these:
Now, did Mr. Arthur Sifton, acting on the instructions of the Prime Minister sell 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 bushels of the Canadian crops before It was ripe or before It was ready to go on the market?


James Alexander Robb: That is it, an inquiry.


George Green Foster: (reading):
That is the statement that was made publicly to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and it has not been denied.
The statement that w s made by Dr. Magill to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange-was that Mr. Plarris had told him he came back to England believ ng fie was authorized to sell and that a cableg am ha l been sent to Mr. Sifton asking h m to sell; but not a word to carry out the assertion of my hon. friend that these bushels of wheat had been actually sold although that was my hon. friend's statement.


James Alexander Robb: Well, I never said they were sold. I inquired " Did Mr. Sifton sell them?"	, i ; | i i


George Green Foster: But my hon. friend besides an inquiry made a positive statement, I grant him this inquiry, but I read to him again his positive statement:
That is the statement that was made publicly to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and it has not been denied.
Now there was- no statement made to the Winnipeg Grain Exchange that the wheat had been sold. There is where my hon. friend and I differ as to our views on the matter. However I am quite willing to leave it to the judgment of the House. Later on the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Robb) made another statement. After having made the statement that I have read, from which the House inferred that this grain had been sold, a question was asked

by the hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Sir Sam Hughes), in these words:
I understood from his (Mr. Robb's) remarks that in connection with the order for sale of wheat in England to which he refers there was a loss having regard to the price which subsequently had to be paid in Canada for that grain. Who bore that loss and how was it made ud?
The House will see that the hon. member for Haliburton (Sir Sam Hughes) got the same impression that I did and it was the only impression that could be taken from the words of my hon. friend-that the wheat had been sold, that therefore a loss had occurred, and that the Grain Exchange was shut down in order that the Government might escape some part of that loss. My hon. friend (Mr. Kobb) said further:
Mr. Robb: I did not say there was a loss. I quoted a statement made publicly in the Winnipeg Grain Exchange that Mr. Lloyd Harris had said that the right hon. Prime Minister had cabled the Rt. Hon. Arthur Sifton to sell fifty or seventy-five million bushels of Canadian wheat, and the impression left upon the members of the Grain Exchange was that because Mr. Lloyd Harris or Rt. Hon. Arthur Sifton or whoever was acting for them had carried out these instructions and had sold this wheat it became necessary to close the Winnipeg Grain Exchange and fix the price of wheat so that the wheat could be secured and delivered without too great a loss to Canada. X am waiting for some person to clear that up.
Now, there was the reiterated statement that the wheat was sold, that there was a loss, and that therefore this inference of my hon. friend from Haliburton was perfectly correct. I then rose and said:
There is not a shadow of foundation for a statement of that kind or any such inference from a statement of that kind as my hon. friend has made on several occasions in this House, leading to the impression that the Government sold short in Great Britain and then, to cover themselves, stopped the Exchange operations when wheat went up. If any one says that he makes a base unfounded assertion which has not one iota of truth in it.
Mr. Robb: The statement Is made that Hon. Arthur Sifton did sell the wheat and no one denies that to-day.
Sir George Poster: The statement is not made that Mr. Sifton sold 75,000,000 bushels of wheat.
Mr. Robb: The minister to-day denies that statement that the wheat was sold.
There again is the reiteration that it was his belief that the wheat was actually sold. Then this interjection was made:
Mr. Meighen: Nobody made the statement except yourself.
Mr. Robb: Do not be so sure about that.
If the hon. member for Chateauguay can bring any person, or any authority, to say that that wheat was sold then he will have
done something which he has not done up to this time. I thought it was only fair that Dr. Magill, who-according to the hon. member for Chateauguay-lies under the imputation of having told the Winnipeg Grain Exchange- that Mr. Sifton had sold 50,000,000 or 75,000,000 bushels of wheat in Great Britain,-should be cleared of that imputation. He did not say so, nor do I know any one in Canada, or out of it, who has said so with the simple exception of the hon member for Chateauguay.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-Wheat Board may be constituted :


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I should like some information as to the names and the occupations of the members of the present board?


George Green Foster: The following
are the names of the members of the present board: James Stewart, H. W. Wood, Frederick William Riddell, W. A. Black, Norman McLeod Patterson; Wm. L. Best; C. B. Watts; Wm. H. McWilliams, Joe. Quintal, Lieut.-Col. J. Z. Fraser, Wm. A. Matheson, F. O. Fowler.


Donald Sutherland: According to reports published in the press in September last some comment has been indulged in with regard to the criticisms of the Wheat Board offered by the old Board of Commerce when the insinuation, if not the direct charge, was made that the large milling companies were represented on this board to a greater degree than was advisable in the public interests. In fact the statement was made that two members of the large milling companies and the secretary of the Dominion Milling Company were members of this board, and that the interests of the producer and the consumer were not represented to the extent that they should be.
Has the attention of the Government been directed to the fact that the discrimination was agaisnt the producing of food owing to the fixation of prices by the board on the by-products of wheat? They differentiated to the extent of $10 per ton between bran and shorts, although, as is well known, there is a difference of only one per cent in the protein contents of those two commodities, and the lack of protein in the bran was made up by the admixture of screenings. I think in view of the complications which have arisen in respect to the Board of Commerce, we ought to find out whether it is the intention of the Govern-

ment to continue having the large milling companies represented on the board to the disadvantage of the producers of foodstuffs, whose interests have been largely neglected.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend will see that the section of the Bill provides for the appointment of a Canadian Wheat Board consisting of twelve members. The passage of this Bill does not commit the Government to any particular twelve men. What ever criticism therefore may have applied to the members of the board as it now exists does not necessarily apply to the new board, because it does not follow that these same men will be appointed in exactly the same proportion as regards the various interests which they are presumed to represent. However, I am bound to say that the Government made very careful choice of the members of the board, and to the best of their ability apportioned the nominees to the different interests involved; the producing interest-the wheat growers; the milling interest; the shipping interest; the consuming and labour interest. And although it is absolutely impossible to have any twelve men carry on operations of this kind and be immune from criticism and dissatisfaction, I think I may say, as having a pretty intimate knowledge of their work, that the operations of the board have given general satisfaction, and that there is a feeling in the country that they have given every one a fair deal.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sutherland! must remember that operations as extensive as these are, stretching over such a vast territory and dealing with so many varying interests, must necessarily cause more or less friction, all the more so because it was an unusual method of conductr ing the marketing of grain, and consequently brings up new and in some cases somewhat perplexing questions. On the whole I believe that through the operations of this board a better price was secured to the farmers and a more uniform passage of the wheat from the hands of the farmers to the ultimate consumers than could have been got in any other way. I believe also that the consumers of this country received their flour, and consequently their bread, at a cheaper rate than could otherwise have been the case; for it is indisputable that flour in this country has been from $1 to $2 and more cheaper on the run of the season than the price enjoyed by consumers in the United States.
I believe that those who have had the most intimate knowledge of the operations

of the board have the greatest confidence that the board has performed to very general satisfaction a very difficult duty requiring a great deal of executive capacity.


Donald Sutherland: I admit that I have not that intimate knowledge of the operations of the board that some others may possess, and I am pleased indeed to know that the minister has such absolute confidence in the satisfaction which the board has given. As to the price of flour, I would again emphasize what I have already referred to, that the production of flour is not the only important 'feature of the grain trade. I pointed out that before the appointment of the Canadian Wheat Board mill feeds were purchasable at nearly one-half the price which has obtained since this board 'began its operatioas. 'Formerly there was a spread of only $5 per ton between bran and shorts; whereas to-day by the fixation of prices the spread is S10 per ton. It is well known to every one who has had any experience in stock-raising that that spread is altogether too great, considering the fact that there is a -difference of only one per cent of protein between bran and shorts, and that that difference is largely made up by adulteration.
With regard to the personnel of the board, it has been stated by the minister that great care was exercised in selecting these men. I come from a part of Ontario where there is a great demand for certain of these mill feeds, and where wheat growing is carried on to a very great extent. It is well known that Western Ontario is a part of the province where farming is conducted with the best possible results. But strange to say, although I have made inquiries of hon. members from Western Ontario, and even from Central Ontario, I have never yet been able to find a single representative of the people who was consulted in regard to the appointment of the one solitary nominee from Western Ontario. I know that a few days ago that gentleman was caricatured by some of the agricultural journals as a farmer who was the laughing-stock of his neighbourhood. Pictures were shown of his buildings and fences, and a general "write-up" given of his whole history. I do not know whether that is correct or not, and I do not think that the writer of the article had any love for that particular member of the wheat board; but as a representative of the people of my constituency, I do want to say that when this Government selects men to deal with their property, as this board has been dealing with it, I consider that I am en-

titled to know something about who is making these recommendations to the Government over and above the heads of those who are elected to look after the interests of the people in Parliament. Western Ontario has received absolutely no consideration from this board and I for one would like to see this business return to ordinary channels and again become governed by the laws of supply and demand. We do not want to have dictators doing things which were done last year and which hampered Western Ontario as no other one thing has done, unless it was the Board of Commerce, which recently passed out of existence.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Board -may make investigation respecting supplies of wheat, etc.
George Green Foster: I move that clause 5 be amended by adding as s-ubsection 2 the following -words:
Should a board be appointed under this Act after trading in the wheat crop of 1920 has commenced, the board shall have power to adjust and make payments from the funds of the board in respect to actual losses incurred by reason of the bringing into effect of this Act. Provided that before payments are made such adjustments and payments are approved by the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: What
amount of losses does the minister anticipate?


George Green Foster: If the marketing of wheat is decontrolled and the business proceeds in its normal channels, the exchanges work and buyers and sellers, as in normal times, go on the market, make their contracts and incur their obligations. This they do upon their individual and corporate responsibility, looking to the future. They deal over a certain space of time and they make provision for certain contingencies which may arise out of a present purchase by some deal for future sale or purchase to hedge their first transaction. They also incur obligations one to the other and contracts between buyer and seller. Suppose that normal business goes on for a week, two weeks, a month, or two months, and then the Government suddenly brings this Act into operation and shuts the gate upon all transactions. These contracts and obligations remain, and the individuals concerned are without the usual facilities and privileges of the market with which to recoup themselves. It is apparent that no business of any kind would he undertaken in the face of a contingency of that kind; so in order to have normal and usual transactions go on, it is necessary that some guarantee be given that if the Government does step in under such circumstances the board shall have power to adjust and make payment from the funds of the board in respect to actual losses incurred by reason of the Act being brought into force. There is a provision that any adjustment or payments are to be approved by the Governor in Council.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose *the Government fixes a price at $2 a bushel. They are dealing with 100,000,000 bushels of wheat. The price in the markets of the world drops to $1.75; in that case the Government would be involved in a loss of $25,000,000,000. It looks to me like a very serious responsibility that the Government are assuming. If I am wrong, the minister will put me right; if I am right, I would hesitate to vote for the minister's proposal.


George Green Foster: The Government does not assume any responsibility whatever. The board', if it is brought into action, will take up the work, carry on transactions for the future, and adjust and make such payments to those who have been carrying on operations as they may *think necessary, to the extent of actual losses incurred. It is not the Government that stands these losses, if there are losses; it is the general fund of the board, which undertakes to sell, to get a price, to make certain advance payments and then to adjust and distribute whatever may be left in the pool, just as was done last year.


John Howard Sinclair: Then it is clear from what the minister says that the country does not undertake any responsibility for the expenditure olf money in connection with the sale or purchase of wheat?


George Green Foster: None.


James Alexander Robb: Is this proposed legislation based on the experience of past years, or is it retroactive?


George Green Foster: It is not retroactive. It is based upon what is absolutely necessary if men are to engage in the business. I think my hon. friend himself will agree that there should be some guarantee. But it is to a certain extent based upon the experience of the wheat board last year. The Grain Exchange was open for a number of days; wheat transactions were carried on and certain actual losses were sustained when the wheat hoard took hold of matters and carried on operations. Those were adjudicated and passed upon and the Gov-

ernment thought it was only right that we 'should recoup traders for actual losses, not for speculative gains or anything of that kind, but simply for actual out-of-pocket losses. A small item is in the Estimates to provide for this settlement. So, in part, the provision which is sought to he made ters and carried on operations. Those were actually did occur.


James Alexander Robb: There is an item in the
Estimates to recoup those who made losses last year?


George Green Foster: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: That would have a sort of
retroactive effect.


George Green Foster: No, it has no
retroactive feature.


James Alexander Robb: As my hon. friend is cleaning up certain losses that were made last year, would I be in order in inquiring how adjustments were made of the transaction in 1914 or 1915 when my hon. friend commandeered some 12,000,000 or 15,000,000 bushels of wheat, to satisfy a contract that was made with Italy or Greece?


George Green Foster: I think that
would be dleoidedly retroactive. I have not the information in that respect before me.
Mr. MAiHARG:	I understand that the
present wheat board continues to August 31st of this year.


George Green Foster: About the end of August.


Mr. MAHARG:: It then goes out of existence automatically, and it will be for the Government to decide whether the exchanges are to be opened or not?


George Green Foster: Yes if the board is called into existence by the Government next year it will be for the board to decide whether the exchanges should be opened or not, but if we simply have enabling legislation providing for a board of twelve, and that legislation is niot brought into effect, it will be for the Government, maybe in association with the present board, to say whether operations may take place on the exchanges, if the trade is de-controlled. Due and early notice will be given.


John Archibald Maharg: If the present board goes out of existence and the Government allows the exchanges to open, if contracts are made for millions of bushels of grain, and the market aots as it did last year and prices go up and the Government gets scared as 
to the results, it will close the grain exchanges. Then, if I understand the proposed addition to this clause, any dealers who have made losses will be recouped from the proceeds of the sale of wheat that has come under Government control. In other words, the producers will be charged to recoup the losses any dealers may have made in high speculation.


George Green Foster: Yes.


John Archibald Maharg: Then I object most
strongly, and I am not prepared to let the clause pass without considerable time being taken for further discussion.


Mr. METGHEN:: The hon. member as
a supporter of the legislation is hardly fair in saying that last year the Government got scared. He intimated that the Government was afraid of high prices for wheat, and consequently stepped in when the exchanges' opened. The hon. member knows that those were not the circumstances at all. 'The circumstances were these:	After
the Government had decided last year that we were in a position to go back to normal trading, and after trading was in operation, it transpired that by reason of the attitude of overseas governments and because of overseas control, associated with the fact of American control, no orders were coming for our wheat. 'Consequently, no banking facilities were available. Consequently, no wheat was going to move. As a result it appeared that the wheat was going to stack back in the West, and that the whole season of navigation would be lost on that account. On that account alone the Government stepped in-not because of any apprehensions as to the price of wheat going up. Indeed, we had the matter under consideration before the grain exchanges opened, but we could not get far enough to decide not to let them open. The advance of wheat on the exchange had not one whit to do with the 'Government's decision, and I think my hon. friend's intimacy with the facts and circumstances ought to have prevented his giving that impression by his statement. It was merely the fact, as I have stated over and over again, that the situation in Europe, the market for our wheat was such that no orders were coming an no finances were available to move the wheat. Not only the bankers but the railway companies made it clear to us that something had to be done or our wheat was not going to move. Those were the only circumstances that moved the Government to act.

To come to the point that is at issue here,
I am .quite free to say, at least it is my opinion, that if the Government acts on this legislation we ought to aot before the time necessary for the exchanges to open, in which event this clause would not come in. Those dealing in wheat must get ready, not at the time the exchanges open, but long in advance. They must have time to get ready to perform their function as wheat traders. Now they cannot do that, with a statute like this on the books, unless they see there is some provision that will prevent them landing in a bog. This clause is in order to give them assurance in the meantime that they are not going to be up against a stonewall, and perhaps certain losses, by getting ready to trade in the ordinary way. If circumstances do not demand that we use the legislation, the ordinary avenues of trade will then be open, but they would not be open unless provision such as this was made in the law. If, on the other hand, it should happen that the legislation is used after there has been some little trading on the exchanges-it could not be a very long time after trading had opened- if shortly after trading has started we find it necessary in the interests of wh^at producers, in order that their wheat may-move, to take this step, it does not seem to me to be unreasonable that actual losses incurred as a result of our action, taken solely in the interests of the producers in order that their wheat should move, should be taken care of by the hoard. Last year some losses were taken care of, and on a very fair basis indeed. Certainly, there was no over generosity; merely actual money out of pocket, not a cent of profit in any case, but only money actually out of pocket, and I do not know that all those losses were taken care of. I took part- in the adjustment .myself, and I kept it down to the smallest possible amount. That amount was taken care of. We felt that it should be taken care of by the board, but the board had a legal opinion that they were not competent to do so. If the Government is to interfere in the interests of the producer, the producer is not going to complain if actual losses are spread over the whole lot, rather than paid out of the treasury by those in whose behalf the legislation was not called into being at all. It is not going to be any great amount; that is inconceivable. There might be a small amount, but I would think there would not be any amount at all. I do not think it all probable or likely that a decision cannot be arrived at before wheat trading opens. But
even if it is not, it is better to have something of this kind on the Statute Books in order that there will be no barrier or discouragement to those engaged in the trade in the ordinary way that would prevent them from making their arrangements, so that if we did not call the Act into effect the wheat would move in the ordinary channels.


James Alexander Robb: Bearing in mind the statement of the minister, I think that this is a good time, in view of the statements of Dr. Magill before the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in regard to the conference he had with Mr. Lloyd Harris in London, England, to inquire of the 'Government as to what authority Mr. Harris had from them to sell the crop. Mr. Harris says that he went to England believing that he was authorized to sell the crop. Did he have any such authority from the Government?


George Green Foster: The Government was extremely anxious as to what should be done with reference to the marketing of our wheat. We were confronted with government regulation in regard to buying in Europe. We had a crop which was beginning to be harvested and which had to start, in the way of finding its channels from the farmer to the ultimate consumer, immediately and not in two or three or four months' time. It could not afford to wait for an organized governmental agency on the other side to say whether, when, and to what extent that agency would purchase, because it might not make an offer or a promise as to whether it would take any or all; and if it did not, and for the length of time that it did not make that offer, there would be an absolute blocking of the passage of wheat from the farmers' hands out. If that obstacle were maintained for any considerable time-two or three months-it would throw the wheat of the West past the closing of navigation and imprison it there to a very large extent until the spring when there would be an opening. That situation will explain to my hon. friend the anxiety of the Government to know what the British Government proposed to do in the matter. For two previous years it had bought, for itself and for the Allies, practically the surplus of Canada, and the question was, would it do that for this present season, and to what extent would it do so? Consequently the matter was canvassed. Mr. Harris was here, and before he went to England, in the interview with Dr. Magill-


James Alexander Robb: In July.


George Green Foster: Yes,-the matter was talked over and very earnestly canvassed. - I may say that Mr. 'Harris was *chairman of the Trade Mission in London. Ministers were in London, and I shall read the telegram that was sent by the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) to Mr. Sifton, because it will explain precisely the point of view of the Government at that time. On July 14 the following cablegram was sent to Mr. Sifton,-and this is no doubt the message to which Dr. Magill had reference:
Question of marketing wheat crop most urgent. Suggest that you and Robertson

That is, Dr. Robertson.
see the British authorities immediately and impress upon them the necessity, in Imperial interests, of making arrangement to purchase in Canada. We could furnish part credit, but most desirable that as much outside money as possible should be provided, as our exchange with United States becoming serious. Unless action taken at once railway companies will be most seriously affected in their earnings, as crop will not be moved to the seaboard. Ascertain if British Government would make an offer for, say, fifty or seventy-five millions of bushels at a fixed price, or at a price to be fixed later on on some agreed basis such as price paid in the United States. Cable reply as soon as possible.
This cablegram explains its own purpose and import. It was to ascertain from the British Government whether they would take our surplus, to what extent they would take it, and what would be the financial terms upon which it would be taken if they made up their minds on the question. That, of course, is a very different matter from sending a cablegram to Mr. Harris or to Mr. Sifton or to anybody else authorizing him to sell seventy-five million bushels of grain. The Government was intensely interested in getting some sure market for the surplus grain of the farmers of Canada, which at that time was in an impasse. It seemed to have encountered an obstacle, and there was no chance, so far as the Government could see, of that obstacle being speedily removed unless the British Government would come to our aid with an offer or a promise or an undertaking to take a certain part or the whole of our surplus.


James Alexander Robb: Having read the cablegram from the Government to Mr. Arthur Sifton, who was then in England, has the minister any objection to leading the cablegram that was sent in reply, if there was such a message, or to stating whether Mr. Lloyd Harris or Mr. Arthur Sifton had any

conversation with Lord Crawford with regard to the Canadian wheat crop?


George Green Foster: After that cable had been despatched Mr. Sifton and Mr. Robertson immediately got into communication with the British authorities and inquired as to what they would do, and when, and on what terms; and a few days after the interview an answer was received to this effect, if I remember rightly, that the Royal Wheat Commission would make their purchases and make them at the lowest possible price. 'They gave no promise and no intimation as to how much they would take, as to when they would take it, or the price which they would be prepared to pay.


James Alexander Robb: The minister has not made any reference to my question as to any conversation between Mr. Lloyd Harris and Lord Crawford.


George Green Foster: If there was a
conversation between Mr. Lloyd Harris and Lord Crawford, it was to the same purpose. I am not quite sure but what Mr. Harris saw Lord Crawford with Mr. Arthur Sifton and Dr. Robertson.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I think there is some
force to the point that my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg), has raised in regard to the claims that may be made against the wheat board in the event of it being established after the opening and subsequent closing of the market should this occur. Personally, I see no objection to the board appropriating from its funds in such case the amount that may be necessary to discharge bona fide losses that may have been incurred in legitimate trading. But what I would point out to the minister in charge of this Bill is that there might possibly enter into this a large speculative quantity, that might easily run into a very considerable amount of the board's money. I hope the legislation is not wide enough that the board would, under such circumstances, be obliged to make good any losses, arising, from pure speculation.


George Green Foster: Quite right.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: That is one point I wish to impress upon my right hon. friend. There is one other suggestion that I would like to make and that is that the Government should reach its decision at as early a date as possible as to whether or not it is going to control the handling of wheat for next season. I cannot imagine anything that would be more unfortunate in its re-

suits and more difficult in working out than to have the grain markets opened for a period of one, two or three months, then closed again under legislation and the activities of the wheat board resumed. I would suggest that it would be wise in the interest of all concerned that the Government should reach their decision as to the continuance of the board for another year at as early a date as possible and should make it known to the country so that there would be no uncertainty in regard to the matter.


George Green Foster: 
James Alexander Robb: The minister now is making provision for the eventuality of possible losses. (Supposing that the Government decides to handle the crop; that at the end of the year there is a slump in the market of fifty cents a bushel, and that Canada sustains a loss of $50,000,000 or $100,000,000 on account of handling that wheat, is it fair that all the taxpayers of Canada should be assessed for that when, upon the statement of the minister made in the House a few days ago, the wheat board now has on hand a considerable sum of money, not owing to profitable handling but to advances in the market? The experience of those in the trade is that the market is just as liable to go down as to go- up. Would the minister consider the wisdom of holding the money now in the possession of the wheat board in trust and making a redistribution when the Government decides to clean up all this handling of the crop and go back to normal conditions? If it is fair this year to give the grower the advantage of an advancing market, surely he should be ready to stand the chances of a declining market next year. What would the minister think about that?


George Green Foster: I think that my hon friend, if he thinks for a moment, will not press that point.


James Alexander Robb: I would like the minister's opinion on it.

Sir GEO-ROE FOSTER:	The situation
seems to me to be exactly this: The Government undertook to and did appoint a wheat board. As every individual farmer cannot market his grain, the wheat board steps in and markets the whole of the wheat received from the farmers of Canada. It does it on this basis: Using the best of our judgment, we will promise you and pay you an initial payment when the wheat is delivered. It is not a fixed price. The Government never fixed the price of wheat this last year. It is a preliminary payment arrived at and recommended on the judgment of the wheat board.
This year it was $2.15 on the basis of No. 1 Northern at Fort William. Now, the contract with the farmer is this: that the Wheat Board markets his wheat to the besit advantage, gives him an advance payment of $2.15, and at the end of the season-when it has marketed the crop, received the payment, and. paid the expenses'-it pays to 'the farmer what is owing to him this year for this year's crop and not for next year's. It could not therefore go as a guarantee against next year's crop. This is the due of the farmer for last season's crop, and we would not have any right at all to mortgage that to pay the losses of another set of farmers for another season's crop. That would not be fair; my hon. friend, I think, will see that. Every tub must stand on its own bottom; that is the old saying. The tub that is standing on its bottom now is the tub containing the farmer's wheat for last season's crop. The next tub, if there is to be one, will contain the wheat that is raised this coming season and the proceeds will go to the farmers who raised that wheat. I think my hon. friend will see that it would not be right to expropriate the (farmer's profits for last season's crop ill order to guarantee against losses for next season's crop; and it is eminently fair, [DOT]taking everything into account, that it is the wheat basis itself which must father its existence, and if it found out later that it is absolutely necessary that the Government shall call into effect this board, then it will be the proof that in the mind of the Government no other way as good to get the farmer's wheat into the market could be found, and that therefore it is eminently to the interest of the farmer that a mode of operation should be put into force and should get for him the best that is possible to be got.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister say where the board get the money to pay the advance of $2.15 to the farmer?
.


George Green Foster: The board gets in this way: When my hon. friend goes to in this way: When my hon. friend goes to his bank and says, " I want an advance of $100 or $500, or two or three million dollars" (as my hon. friend might be in a position to-I dO' not know), the bank will say to him, "Morally you are a good creditor. What are you going to do with your advance?" and you tell them "I am going to buy and sell wheat." However good your moral (standing, and1 whatever securities you may have otherwise, that bank will probably say to you, "Have you any contracts for wheat, or are you simply trading on your optimism in the belief that you will be able to get a contract somewhere?" You show them your contracts when you get them, and if your contracts are all right and the security satisfactory they Will say, "You shall have your advance up to a certain amount." That is what the Wheat Board, backed by the Government, was able to do. It was able to say to the bankers, "Make an advance to the Wheat Board on the security of the farmers' wheat up to a certain amount." The initial credit was given, and this wheat was sold and this money came in. The money was not in the pockets of the Wheat Board individually; it was passed back to the banks; and for all the subsequent operations of the Wheat Board, after the initial start was given to' it, money flows in constantly, and consequently the absolute advance by the banks is an infinitesimal amount to be taken into account.


John Howard Sinclair: We are
back in the same position where we were before. The banks advance the money on the credit of the Government. They do not advance the money to an irresponsible Wheat Board but they advance it to the 'Government of Canada and if, when the wheat is sold, in place of bringing $2.15 in the market it brings only $1.02 or $1.50, then the Government will have to implement the difference between the price the wheat has sold for and the advance they made to the farmer, so that the Government is incurring a very serious and heavy liability in this matter, whereas the minister told me a few minutes ago that the Government was not incurring any liability.


George Green Foster: The Government to the extent that I have spoken of, as starting the initial arrangements, incur a responsibility. Two things come in. In the first place we have the good sense and judgment of a board which has a primary and pretty efficient knowledge of the whole

situation. What that board did last year it would do again: It would look over the situation, it would exercise its judgment and it would set such an initial payment as, in the best exercise of its judgment, it thought would not submit it to ultimate loss. There is always a contingency. My hon. friend starts out into a business venture. He does not know whether he will live to complete it or not but he tries it and takes the contingency; There is a contingency in every business that we starr,, and to a certain extent the Government does incur some responsibility. It is willing to incur something as a responsibility rather *than to have the great primary product of wheat depressed in its value so that the country does not get what really the fruitful earth gives to it as its heritage.


William Findlay Maclean: From the conversational discussion which has taken place it is quite evident to me, although we never could get it admitted, that it is the country that is advancing the money, not even the banks, and it is by reason of national notes and the credit of Canada that even the banks have the means and the wherewithal to finance these propositions. I notice that is very frequently ignored in all the financial arrangements of this country and is hardly ever admitted in Parliament-in other words that the money for carrying on the business of this country, especially since the war began, is not so much through what the banks have of their own as it is through the additional issue of bank notes, or rather of national notes on the credit of the country, that so enormous a proposition as the handling of the Canadian wheat CTop is carried.


Mr. HENDERS:: I do not think there
need be very much fear of sustaining loss in connection with the handling of the crop if the method that obtained last year is pursued. As was intimated by the minister, before the initial price or advance is fixed, due consideration is given to the matter. 'The board will see to it that they make an initial advance that will leave them perfectly safe with the reasonable expectation that they will be below the price expected to be obtained for the wheat rather than above, so that the Government is perfectly safe in the hands of the board acting so prudently. I remember very well that last year there was a conference held at which there was a general discussion of this matter and people generally felt
that with the initial advance in such a position the farmers would be given all that we could reasonably afford to give them and they might pay their indebtedness as it came about, always bearing in mind the fact that the Government must safeguard itself from the possibility of loss in the future. No doubt equally satisfactory results will be obtained this year if the same course is pursued. There is another point I wish to emphasize and it is the suggestion made a few minutes ago about getting the policy fixed definitely, or at as early a date as possible. If there was any failure at all in connection with the crop last year it resulted from attempting to do the impossible, and I would like to sound a note of warning that this year no attempt along that line should be made. It would be far better and safer for all concerned, if the Government sees its way clear to do so, to say right at the beginning "We hold the control of the wheat for the next year" rather than attempt to experiment and have to retrace its steps later. I am sure that with the experience of last year before the Government it will be very careful along that line this year.


John Archibald Maharg: The minister tells us
that the losses the Government had to make good last year were very small. Can he tell us to whom those losses were paid? Was any portion paid to the actual original buyers of the wheat from the producers, or were the losses paid wholly to the speculative element that buys second-hand?
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER: I have not that information at hand. I have ordered it to be ready for presentation when the item in the Supplementary Estimates is brought before the House. It is only actual money losses that were made good.


John Archibald Maharg: I quite agree that that is the case; but those losses might have been incurred by some men who had never bought a bushel of wheat in their lives; it was simply paper they were dealing with. We know of instances where the real purchases of wheat brought in for sale to the elevator companies have been exceeded eight or ten times by the purchases on the market. Probably a million bushels of wheat would be actually thrown on the market, but the trading for that day showed that millions and millions of bushels were dealt with. This is what I am objecting to. I do not object if the minister can confine the benefit to the actual gatherers of grain in the country, whether they be purchasers by carload or by wagonload; but

the objection is to allow all and sundry to come in and probably fifty to seventy-five millions bushels of grain will be handled on the market in the course of a few days when there was really not a bushel of wheat actually sold and purchased, as was the case last year. I venture to say that not an elevator company that sold any wheat on that market when that particular trade was made thought that these losses would be made good. I would like it to be made clear just who is going to be recouped for any losses, and what is going to be done with the profits. There might be handsome profits made in the meantime.


George Green Foster: There is this
consideration:	the area of trading this
year will certainly not be so wide as in normal times because of the conditions. The opening of the grain markets in the United States at a later date and dealing in options only of December, as seems to be the idea at the present time, will not offer a very extended area for trading. It will be mainly trading in Canada upon the exchange itself between its members and between the wheat buyers and the farmers. There is this other consideration: any man knows when he makes his trade that if he does not protect himself by honest and reasonable trading he will have to bear his own losses. I cannot conceive of any one on the strength of the mere contingency that the Wheat Board may be brought into operation, and with it some machinery by which losses can be adjusted, will therefore go into a speculative adventure. The strong probabilities are that he would have to bear his own losses, and therefore he would be just as careful in the one case as in the other. I will get the information for my hon. friend.


William Findlay Maclean: It does
not seem to me fair that the loss, if any, is to be borne by the country in view of the fact that the country is also to attend to the financing.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I notice that the amendment provides for the issuing of licenses. Will the minister be good enough to explain why power to issue licenses ie required by the wheat board and whether or not there is danger of conflict with the Board of Grain Commissioners?


George Green Foster: These powers
have been given to and used by the present wheat board from the time they commenced their operations. It is simply to provide the machinery by which they can carry out the powers with which they have been endowed. They could not do that without a system of licenses.


James Alexander Robb: Paragraph (j) reads:
To prohibit the export out of Canada or the importation into Canada of any wheat or wheat products otherwise than an accordance with the regulations or orders of the board.
This broadens the powers that different boards in Canada have had from time to time since an Order in Council was passed in 1917 giving to Canada the right and. privileges of reciprocity, so that if the board is established under this legislation and continues this year as they did last year and by the Food (Control Board of previous years, there will be a continuation of the efforts, if I may use the word, of the Government to destroy the much-boasted benefits of reciprocity in wheat between Canada and the United States. The minister will admit, I am sure, that if we prevent the importation into 'Canada of wheat products, that automatically will deprive our own people of the benefits of reciprocity and of sending our wheat into the United States markets.


George Green Foster: The intention is not at all to interfere with reciprocal relations between the United States and Canada. The probabilities are that even if the wheat board be again called into o.peration the power may never have to be used so far as importations from the United States are concerned,-as, indeed, it was not used by the wheat board last year, at least, to such an extent as to go counter to the reciprocity dealings between the two countries, It is simply a preventive measure which may be used under certain circumstances and which will not be used unless it becomes necessary. With reference to the export of wheat and flour, of course, that is vital to the work of the wheat board, because if it undertakes to buy and to sell under its own system there is no (proper way it can do that except by a system of licenses. It must have the power to grant or to refuse.	-


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
George Green Foster: 
Mr.   MIGRPHY@: What became of the
balance of the Ontario wheat?


George Green Foster: It was milled and fed by the Ontario people themselves, absolutely. The other criticism was this, that the wheat board did not try, or if it did try it did not succeed in getting a larger proportion of orders in the foreign market for wheat flour. Now, I followed that matter pretty closely myself. When I was m England and Paris the matter of the future supply was up, and different states through their representatives had interviews with the ministers, and particularly with myself, as to what Canada could do to supply them with wheat. What was the whole clamour, the whole demand? It was that we should get wheat for them. Greece wanted wheat, Italy wanted wheat, France wanted wheat, Belgium wanted wheat, England wanted wheat. None of them wanted flour, and for the very obvious reason that, in the first place the wheat was more easily taken to them and at less cost, but mainly

because they had a famine of stock feed, and they wanted the wheat in order that they might mill it at home and have the stock feed for their cattle-just as we. wanted it here. That was what the Wheat Board was up against when it undertook to market flour as well as wheat, and it was only by very tactful and very persistent effort in making conditions such that these countries should take a certain amount of . flour, if they got their demands for wheat at the prices that were going. In that way -and I>
know whereof I speak-the Wheat Board has been instrumental in selling flour on the foreign market which the mills could never have got rid of but for those efforts of the board and what I consider their tactful management in the treatment of foreign markets. I just draw those items to the minds of hon. members so that when they are thinking about this or that, they may modify undue criticism by taking into account the conditions. I know that the Greek Government, Vemezelos and his officers, came to me and) we talked the matter over. I suggested that we wanted to get rid of flour as well as wheat, and they said that the circumstances were such that they had the money and would pay for wheat, but they wanted wheat and not flour. Yet in spite of all that the Wheat Board has been able, and 'Canada has been able, to sell a certain proportion of flour even to Greece.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Has the minister any idea of the quantity of western wheat milled by Ontario millers?


George Green Foster: I have not those [DOT]figures before me. I will say this maybe It might be said now: of the total crop of wheat last season, about 60,000,000 bushels of wheat have been sold, as well as a little [DOT]over 20,000,000 bushels of wheat equivalent in flour, making about 80,000,000 bushels in .all that have been sold. What remains is not a very large .quantity, and it is daily going out.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Was that 20,000,000 bushels of wheat that was sold in the form of flour, sold abroad or at home?


George Green Foster: The figures I
gave were export figures.


Mr. WILSON (Saskatoon):: I am very
pleased that the minister has introduced this amendment, for I thought of suggesting one to that effect myself. The milling industry of Canada is a very important one. Success in farming and the welfare of our people depend upon milling as well as on ithe production of wheat. During the past 
year the millers have been in an awkward position owing to the great difference in transportation charges on flour as compared with wheat. The cost of transporting flour .across the ocean at the present time is about 25 cents a hundred higher than the rate on wheat. That makes a difference of about 15 cents a bushel. This is a serious handicap which the millers are labouring under. While I have had about 16 years experience in the milling business, I do not think that in my whole experience there has been a time when the business was so crippled as it was during February, March and April of the past year. A great many plants throughout the country were closed down. We have in Canadd a milling capacity of about two-thrids in excess of the consuming capacity of the Canadian people. The hon. member for South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) was complaining that, in his opinion, the Wheat Board was unduly favouring the millers. Now the 'millers have been of the opinion that they have not been getting altogether a square deal from the Wheat Board. I think, however, it has been mainly through the difference in the cost of transportation of flour over wheat that the Wheat Board have been unable to export for the millers the uquantities of flour which the millers think should have been exported. The member for South Oxford has based his complaint on the prices of bran and, shorts. He complains that the prices1 are excessive and he also finds fault with the spread of $10 between bran and shorts, which he says is too great. As to the first complaint regarding the high cost, I may point out that the miller must buy the wheat from the farmer. When millers purchased wheat at a dollar a bushel and calculated on the basis of 100 pounds it would mean about a $1.66 per 100 pounds. At that time, to my knowledge, we were selling bran in the West at from $20 to $25 a ton, and for a great portion of the past season the millers have been paying $2.88 per bushel for wheat. Convert that into hundredweight value and it is $4.66 per hundred, which is pretty nearly three times greater than a dollar a bushel. If you add the same ratio of advance in your feed compared with the increased price of wheat between $1 and $2.80, we would have to have about $75 a ton for bran. So that you you can see that the wheat board in setting the price have loaded on to the flour an extra amount of the cost, far greater than when wheat was about a $1 a bushel, in order to sell bran and shorts at thei

price at which they are being sold to-day. Since the House rose at six o'clock I have been looking at the Montreal Gazette, and I find that bran is quoted at $54.25 a ton and shorts at $61.25. Now, the hon. member for South Oxford complains that there is $10 of a difference in the selling price between bran and shorts, but this quotation from Montreal shows a difference of only $7, and the same obtains in Winnipeg. The price of bran in carload lots in Winnipeg is $48 and shorts $55 per carload.


Donald Sutherland: Will the hon. member deny that the wheat board fixed a difference of $10 between the two?


James Robert Wilson: Not to my knowledge. Now, in Australia the Government Control Board sells wheat at slightly less to the millers than they can get in the export market in order to give the mills a little advantage in being able to mill at home and so have feed at home. It is very important, I think, that as much as possible of the wheat should be milled' in the country, from the point of view not only of employment, but also of feed. You cannot have an abundance of feed if the mills are not running pretty well up to capacity, and it would seem to me that unless there can be some closing up on the ocean rates at present existing between flour and wheat at 25 cents a hundred it will almost put the mills out of business in this country. If such a policy is allowed to be carried out by any shipping company it can easily extinguish an industry in this country so far as exports are concerned, and I *think the Government should use their good offices in bringing to the attention of the shipping companies this unfair discrimination; for after all, there is not much difference in the handling charges between transferring a car of flour and a car of wheat from a car to a vessel. I think, therefore, that there is an unfair discrimination to the injury of the milling business and the country. If we pursue a policy of milling wheat in this country bnly to the extent of our home consumption of flour, our farm lands will be ruined to such an extent that they will be impoverished. The only way in which you can retain the fertility of the land is to return as much as possible back to it of the product which you take from it. You can turn it back in the way of bran and shorts through the medium of feeding stock and obtaining the reeultant fertilizer. I hope that the members of the committee 277
will see the neoessdty of this amendment as introduced by the minister. The mills are not asking for anything unfair. There was a similar regulation in the United States when they had wheat control. The Wheat *Control Board could give 'a preference so long as it did not operate to the detriment of the people. They had power to give a preference to the export of flour.


John Archibald Maharg: Will the minister say
what he considers would toe a proper interpretation of the word "preference" in his amendment? To what extent will it apply?
Sir GEORGE. FOSTER:	I am not able
to answer that question, and fl do not think that the hon. member quite expects me to answer it. You' have a board that represents all the different interests concerned, a board of practical men of wide knowledge. They fix these prices, and I think we can trust them to give what they consider to be a fair and equitable consideration to the two products during the process of their sale. I do not think you could apply any academic rule of preference. It would depend to a large extent on the sales and on the parties to whom you sold. But the main principle is established for their guidance, that they should see to it that a preference be given unless there is a prejudicial effect upon the public interests. For instance, if you were too hard in pushing your preference on flour you might to that national customer lose the sale of your wheat as well. All these considerations enter into the question. In connection with what my hon. friend has said in regard to the discrimination in ocean rates, in iso far as that can be remedied without taking the matter up particularly with the different steamship carrying interests, the wheat board has an opportunity of overcoming that differentiation which is the rule of the carrying steamships. For example, in negotiations with, let us say, the 'Greek Government there would be the condition that whilst the Greeks paid so much for their wheat and the wheat board agreed to deliver the grain as the seaboard the Greek government would undertake to provide its own carrying capacity and send its own vessels, 'chartered or otherwise; -and in these cases, of course, the discrimination or differentiation between wheat and flour does	not	come	in.


Donald Sutherland: 

directly. I do not wish to be understood as condemning the board for not being able to get greater .quantities of flour shipped. I realize the difficulties they 'had to .contend with in that ocean rates on wheat were so much more than on flour that it was .practically impossible for our Canadian millers to compete with the millers overseas. I have made reference to this question, on a number o-f occasions and II do not think that any one could infer from my remarks that I was blaming the millers or the board. I did attribute the cause of our trouble to the faot that while the people of Great Britain and other countries are wide awake to the importance of the by-products of wheat, the people of Canada are asleep in regard to the .matter. If we had a general awakening it would change that condition so materially ithat .we would reap the benefit from it, and no.w that we have entered upon transportation, and the construction of ocean steamships we could afford to give a preference to the shipment of flour over wheat because it would be good business for Canada to do. so. The ocean freight charge of 35 cents, per 100 pounds on wheat and 60 cents per 100 pounds no flour discloses an outrageous difference; yet the ocean ralt-es are largely controlled by the people of Great Britain. I .pointed out the other day the manner in which the stock raisers of Great Britain are protected by the government of that country. The "free trade" government of Great- Britain prohibit the importation, of cattle from Canada. In addition they have Charge of the transportation of products from this country, and in that way they not only protect the farmers of Great Britain but protect the millers as well. The Government of Great Britain are .anxious to keep the .mills in operation all the time so that they will have this stuff to feed to. their stock at a cheap rate. With regard to the production of bread, I venture to say that the amount that is paid out for bread by the average family is only a small item compared with what they are paying for many other foodstuffs sudh as dairy products, beef, bacon and things of that kind which are dependent on the grinding and feeding of mill feed.
(I am glad that the minister has moved this amendment. I would suggest that he go a little farther and see to it that these ocean transports for which we have paid $20,000,000 will be employed, so. .as- to bring these people to their senses and. .make (certain that the millers of this country are not discriminated against in the way in which they have been discriminated aganst in the past.

1 desire to say a word or two in regard to the spread between the cost of bran and shorts. It came out in the evidence in the investigation before the Board of Commerce that this matter was in the hands of the wheat board, that the spread had been fixed at $10. As a matter of fact that has been in force for a considerable time. What has resulted? This has resulted-that the per ton. The miller is grinding up bran that has been ground up fine; there is only one per cent of difference. Bran is said to contain 14 per cent of protein, 3 per cent of fat and 10 per cent of fibre, while shorts has 15 per cent protein, 4 per cent fat .and 8 per cent fibre. The difference is so small that the Food Board, when they had control of this matter, fixed the spread at $5 per ton. The. miller is grinding up .bran and selling it as shorts or middlings. In addition to that, it not being up to the grade in protein, he takes care to see that the offal or screenings that are taken from the grain,-mustard seed and things of that kind, which are high in protein,-are added to this poorer bran in order to bring it up to the standard that is required. There has been going on, and there is going on to-day, the worst system-I will not say of graft because it is permissible for the miller to do this by reason of the legislation which we have placed1 upon, the Statute Books.-but a system the continuance of which is nothing short of an outrage. We have the evidence of the leading millers, the Ogilvie Milling Company, -the Lake of the Woods Milling Company and such others, that such a practice exists. Their contention is that they buy this stuff in the wheat and that consequently they are justified in calling it wheat and putting it in with the by-products of wheat in the milling process. That has been going on and is still going on. In that, I contend, the millers are pursuing a shortsighted policy. That stuff ought to be sold for what it really is. If the mill feeds were protected as they ought to be very few complaints would be heard from the farmers.
Just a word with regard to the province of Ontario. It has been stated that under the regulations of the wheat board the price paid to the farmers is .about $2.18 per bushel. As a matter of fact they have paid $1.95 per bushel. It has been pointed out that of the 20,000,000 bushels of wheat grown in Ontario last year only about 90,000 bushels was handled by the wheat board. Where has the rest of it gone? Much of it has been ground up and fed to stock rather than take a chance with the dirt that

is 'being put on the market and sold at a high price. Many of the very best farmers in Ontario have been grinding their wheat and feeding it to their stock rather than dispose of it in any other way, largely by reason of the fact that only fl.95 was the amount that was being paid to them and they had no assurance that they would ever receive anything further than that amount. The amount which the farmer, under the certificates issued to them would receive, in addition to the S1.95 per bushel, would be so small that it would not be worth consideration, and these certificates have passed out of the hands of the majority of the people who had them. I congratulate the minister on embodying in the Bill that preference, but I would ask 'him to go farther and see that power is placed in the hands of the board to in some measure control ocean rates, because I believe that the transports that we have been building come under the control of this House. In that way, and in that way only, can you ensure justice being done and equal rights to the people of Canada and particularly the millers.
Amendment 'agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 10-providing cars:


James Alexander Robb: From the experience of Last year this clause gives the Grain Board power, if they wish,, to ruin dealers who may be handling oats. The experience of il'ast year was that Large quantities of oats were purchased by Eastern Canada dealers but for one reason or another they were unable to obtain delivery. Direct orders were sent by the Chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners to Fort William to put up at least a certain percentage weekly oif cars loaded with oats, but notwithstanding these orders preference w-as given at times to wheat. Now we are going to legalize this practice by giving the board power to put out wheat in preference to oats. Hon. gentlemen can see that that may be used greatly to the disadvantage of sellers and purchasers of oats who might sell oats for delivery at certain times, because it is within the power of the board in handling the wheat to prevent those people from getting cars and from making delivery as requested. It seems to me that the minister might very well strike this clause out of the Bill.


George Green Foster: 
James Alexander Robb: Why is it necessary to put in this provision at all if the Railway Commission now have this power?


George Green Foster: It is necessary because it gives the wheat board an opportunity to present their case before the Railway Commission.


James Alexander Robb: Exactly.


George Green Foster: That is all, and the wheat board have the right to press their case, under certain circumstances, just the same as all other dealers have.


James Alexander Robb: To. the detriment of other shippers.


George Green Foster: That is for the Railway Commission to say. The matter is not decided by the wheat board. The request, and the arguments to sustain the request, are made by the wheat board, but the judgment is altogether within the hands of the Railway Commission.


James Alexander Robb: But by legislation the wheat board are given at least a hint that they will have certain preferences over the handlers of oats and barley; and the very argument the minister puts up in favour

of getting wheat forward before the close of navigation might equally well apply to oats or to barley that were sold for delivery on a certain ship sailing at a certain date. If they are all on the same basis why give a preference?
'Sir GEORGE FOSTER: Except to this extent; my hon. friend will admit that oats are not a trans-oceanic shipment in the way that wheat is. Cooisequently oats are not so important for the export'market, and if there is an exigency, as between the two, wheat should get the preference for a certain time for export. This clause merely gives the right to bring that matter closely to the attention of the railway board and they decide it. We cannot leave it to any better authority.


James Alexander Robb: My hon. friend will scarcely get me to admit that wheat is more important than oats, because we produce in this country double the quantity of oats that we do of wheat.


George Green Foster: Yes,, but in the '.aso of wheat for the export market I think my hon. Mend will admit my contention.


James Alexander Robb: No, I will not admit it.


George Green Foster: I see, my hon. friend will not admit anything.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 15-powers of grain supervisors of Canada restricted:
George Green Foster: I move that
clause 15 be dropped. It is not necessary now because there is no longer any board oi grain supervisors.
On section 16-Duration of Act:


George Green Foster: To make the Act workable I beg to move to amend clause 16 by inserting after the word "shall" in the first line the words "come into force upon proclamation of the Governor in Council and! shall;" and by substituting for the words "day immediately succeeding the day of prorogation of the next session of Parliament" the 'following words1: "15th day of August, 1921."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that amendment in view of the suggestion made the other day for my right hon. friend's consideration-to cover the possibility of the Government going to pieces during the course of next session?


George Green Foster: Oh, no, we have not made any provision for an improbable calamity.
LMr. Robb.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think you are making it now.


Mr. FIELDING:: How does the amended section read?


George Green Foster: In this way:
This Act shall come into force upon proclamation of the Governor in Council and shall continue in force until the 15th day of August, 1921.
It is not to provide foT any such oalamity as was hinted at and hoped for by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King), but because the operations in the season's crop end about that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be very wise to provide against both contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
George Green Foster: Before the Bill is reported I want to add a little to what I hinted at the other day, but was not able exactly to confirm. There will be a .dividend of 50 per cent paid upon the participation certificates, on and after the 15th July, to be equal at least to 20 cents' per bushel.


James Alexander Robb: Fifty per cent or 50 cents?


George Green Foster: Fifty per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: Has- any provision been piadte in case of wheat going below the stated price? Of course, if there is a surplus, wheat growers get it. But if there is a deficiency who pays the bill?
' Sir GEORGE FOSTER:	We discussed
that matter this afternoon, but my hon. Mend was not in the House. However, I will give him the information.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I can read! it in
Hansard.


George Green Foster: All right.


Mr. JACOBS:: I suppose there is no
danger of the Government being charged with profiteering as a result of this announcement?


George Green Foster: II am afraid to touch such a delicate subject.
Bill reported as amended, read the third time, and passed.


DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor Generali) moved the third reading of Bill No. 12 respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise.
William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move:
That the Bill he not now read a third time, but be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it ' by adding the following words as subsection 1 of section 40 "In the case of by-elections, if two or more vacancies exist at the same time the Governor in Council shall fix one and the same day for nomination in all the electoral districts for which members are to be elected. Provided, however, that this shall not apply in any case in which the vacancy, whether caused by death, resignation or otherwise, has existed for less than one month''.
The principle of simultaneous polling has been regarded as. an important one in the public affairs of 'Canada for very many years. There was a time, long ago, when exceptions had to- be made for a few isolated districts. These have gradually disappeared, and I think now we recognize 'that in the case of a general election there should be one day chosen for all the elections to be held. I. know that in the earlier history of the provinces which now compose the Dominion the name of a very distinguished statesman in Nova Scotia was most honourably associated with what is called "the simultaneous polling day". I refer to the late distinguished leader of the Conservative party in that province, the Hon. Mr. Johnston. The desirability of simultaneous polling, then, has been recognized1 in our general elections, but by some omission it has not been recognized in our by-elections. If it is. a sound principle that at a general election all the elections shall be held on the same day, surely it is an equally sound principle to say that if there are half a dozen by-elections the writs shall be issued for the same day. AH the argument that applies in the one case applies with the same force in the other case.
Now, it has happened at. times that a number of vacancies have existed and the government-and when I say "government" I do not. mean the present Government but all governments-have taken advantage of the opportunity to select the particular seat in which it suited their convenience to bring on the election, and having carried' that seat, as they believed they might, they used it as an instrument to affect the results in the other seats, and so undue influence was exercised by the government of the day. Again I say that when I speak of "the government of the day", I am not referring to the present Government alone, but to all governments,.
It seems to me that it is reasonable, if there are a number of vacancies existing at the same time, that the writs shall be issued for the same diay. When I was presenting
that view at an earlier stage of the session an hon. member asked me the question: What would you do in the case of a vancancy which had very recently occurred? I thought that a fair question, and what I have proposed in this resolution is that if the vacancy has occurred within thirty days the rule shall not apply, but wherever vacancies have existed for thirty days or more then all shall be' filled at the same time; the writs shall be issued for one and the same day. Now, if you want an illustration of this-and it is only because it is an illustration that I refer to it-take what has happened in the case of East Elgin. Here we have had a vacancy for several months, but no writ has been issued, simply and solely because it has suited the convenience of the Government to pick and choose the places in which there shall be contests. The district of St. James in Montreal and the district of East Elgin were made vacant by death at about the same time. In the case of St. James division an opportunity was afforded to the people to return their member, and we have an able and eloquent member in this House representing that division. But the people of East Elgin have been denied an opportunity of having any representative in this House. There was a.time when there used to be some talk of French domination. Here is a case of Frenclx domination; the French district of St. James has its member here but the English district of East Elgin has been denied the right of representation in Parliament. Sir, the argument is so simple and so complete that I do not'need to dwell upon it. The motion I make is to the effect that if a vacancy has but lately occurred, say within a month, it shall be excepted from the rule, but wherever vacancies have existed for more than a month the Governor in Council shall be obliged to issue the writs at the same time, so that the condition! which now prevails whereby one constituency in this Dominion is denied its representation for a whole session shall no longer be permitted to exist.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know
that personally I take any great objection, on the whole, to the proposal which my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has just made in the amendment which he has moved, but I think it is rather late in the career of this Bill and late in the session to bring such a matter forward. I have some faint recollection that during the committee stage of the Bill my hon. friend made a sugges-

tion something like that which he now makes in his proposed amendment, but he certainly did not press his suggestion with any earnestness at that time. After all, the matter is a minor matter and not one of serious import. We have at present only one vacancy in an electoral district, and if the amendment passed it would not affect any election which is at present in sight or which we can reasonably anticipate. I agree that in the case of a general election . we should abide by the established principle that all elections should be held on one day; that is the provision in the Bill. I believe also that if several by-elections were to come on approximately at the same time it would be well that they be held on the same day. However, at the last session of this Parliament the House considered this question.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Hugh Guthrie: It was brought up in the form of a public Bill introduced by a private member on .the opposite side, and referred to a special committee of the House. That committee recommended that the Government should bring on by-elections to fill vacancies within six months after the day upon which the vacancy occurred. That was not haphazard legislation. The special committee went fully into the question. We considered it at two or three meetings; I was a member of the committee. W7e reported our findings to the House of Commons and the House passed that law. Now, that is a reasonable safeguard. I can remember when it was a common thing in the old days to keep constituencies open for a long time to suit the convenience of the Government-not of one Government; I think every. Government was guilty in that respect, if guilt was attributable to anybody. But now we have a definite, fixed rule on the subject, that only six months may elapse before a by-election shall be brought on and a given vacancy filled. In my humble judgment, the House should stick to that provision.
But my chief objection to the proposed motion is this. So far as we can see now there is no difficulty that it is going to remedy. If difficulties aiise we may take steps at the next session to remedy them; I do not think that at this late moment we should recommit this measure. The House has so fully gone into the whole election Bill, has so thoroughly discussed it, that the moment has come when, I think, hon. members are entitled to say; surely thio is the end. If we have not an absolute-[Mr. Guthrie.l
ly perfect measure we have one which comes nearer to a perfect measure than any other election law that was ever submitted to this Parliament. I think, Mr. Speaker, that this proposal may well await another session-if, indeed, it is one which should obtain our serious attention at all.


Mr. PARENT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. McCurdy). Had I voted I would have voted lor the amendment.


Mr. MEWBURN:: I was paired with the hon. member lor West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BURRELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Mr. McMA'STER: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. MeGib-bon). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. CLEMENTS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mar-cil). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. STACEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau',. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members of the House will agree that if it is possible in the administration of as important a measure as this Franchise Act to effect a substantial economy and at the same time to give to the electorate greater confidence in the machinery itself, such an object is eminently worthy of attainment at the present time. In the Bill as it has been finally passed through committee, provision is made that in the provinces where provincial lists are available and have been prepared within two years of the time a general election takes place, these lists shall be made the basis of the lists to be used for federal purposes. That section of the Bill must be read in conjunction with two other sections of the Bill as it now stands: First, the section which provides that in urban districts all lists shall be revised by judicial officers, who shall hold courts of revision at stated times and in stated places within twenty days of the date of polling, and secondly, that section of the Bill which provides that on the day of voting any elector in a rural municipality may have his name put upon the list by simply going to the poll accompanied by any other resident elector in the municipality, and taking the oath respecting qualification of voters, whereupon such elector receives the right to vote and is given ia ballot.
With the law amended in this form it seems wholly unnecessary to provide for the appointment in the rural districts of enumerators who under the present Bill are termed registrars. If there were in a province no provincial lists available, there

would be some reason far appointing registrars in rural as well as in urban districts, but where the law provides, as the Bill now does, that in certain provinces where there are provincial lists they are to be made the basis of the lists for federal purposes, the need of any registrars to supplement those lists or to strike names off is wholly unnecessary. That 'being so, I propose to submit to the 'House an amendment to the effect that in rural districts where the provincial lists are used as the basis of the lists for federal elections, registrars shall not be appointed, but that persons whose names do not appear on the provincial lists may either go before one of the revising officers in an adjoining urban division and have their names placed upon the lists by the court	of revision
which may be held at	such place,
or, if they prefer so to do, may wait until the day of election and go to the poll accompanied by some person resident in the polling subdivision and exercise their right to cast their ballots upon taking the oath. If that course is adopted it should be the means of saving to the country hundreds of thousands of dollars in the administration of the Act. It should also be the means of avoiding the necessity of 'appointing a whole army of enumerators in those provinces where the work of preparing the lists is already virtually complete. It is obviously desirable in connection with election lists that if possible there should be about them something in the nature of finality. When provincial lists have been prepared and are available to all who care to see them there is this element of finality. *Electors can look at the lists and if their names are not on them they will know that if entitled to vote they can on the day of election go to the poll and take the oath and vote, or that before the election day they can appear in an adjoining urban municipality where a judicial officer is revising the roll and have their names added. This means no doubt on the part of the elector as to whether or not his name is or is not on the list for the purpose of voting. But the Government proposes, notwithstanding, to appoint in rural divisions enumerators to revise these lists that have already been prepared by the provinces. That means that these rural registrars may, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, take from those lists or add to them as they think best. Giving that power to a grouxr of appointees of the Government for that particular time and purpose will simply create confusion in the minds of the elee-fMr. Mackenzie King.]
tors, who will not know until practically the day of polling comes whether or not an enumerator has erased a name or has added it. I feel, therefore, if we can effect economy in the administration of the Act and inspire greater certainty in the mind of the electorate in regard to election machinery, at the same time removing the possibility of abuse through Government patronage, we shall be helping to make the Act more acceptable to the people of the Dominion. I can see no reason whatever why the Government should wish to have this power of appointing a lot of superfluous registrars or enumerators, unless it is to influence a body of men at election time by the use of a little patronage, which may mean little in outlay to individuals, but which, when extended to a large number of persons, will represent a considerable sum in the ultimate expenses of elections.
Let me indicate to the House what this business of enumeration has cost the country! One can only arrive at the cost approximately, but 1 think the figures I have will roughly suggest what it is we aim at in seeking to effect this economy where there is absolute safety in so doing. In a statement brought down by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) on March 22, figures were given as to the cost of previous general elections in Canada, and I will give to the House the totals for the years then recorded. The House will see from these figures how very much more expensive the election of 1917 was than any previous election, and I shall show, after I have quoted these figures as a whole, wherein the additional expense for 1917 is almost exclusively chargeable to the system of enumeration which was adopted in that election, in place of the system that had been formerly followed of using provincial lists where they were available. In 1896 the general elections cost $197,000-1 will not give the odd figures-in 1900, $232,000; in 1904, $307,000; in 1908, $391,000; in 1911, $507,000; in 1919, $1,678,000. There is an increase over the previous election of $1,170,000 in the last election, which was carried on unuder the enumerating system. My hon. friends opposite will say that this sum included the expense of taking the vote overseas. It did, but the Auditor General's report contains the figures as to that cost, and a return was made to Parliament showing the various items in connection with the election of 1917 from which I quote. In 1911, the cost of the general election was $507,353.55. The election for

1917 cost $1,678,139.99, of which $251,613.09 was paid for military and naval presiding officers, special returning officers, scrutineers in Canada, Bermuda, the United States, England, France, and elsewhere. In other words, that was the total amount which went to the taking of the vote outside of this country. The cost in Canada alone came to $1,426,526, Of which the cost for returning officers and enumerators was $1,204,207. So that practically the whole of this large amount consisted in paying officers and enumerators. In the last provincial election in Ontario the lists were prepared for the first time under the enumerating system and that election cost the province nearly a million and a half dollars.
Now, the Act as my hon. friend permitted it to be amended in committee provides, so far as Ontario is concerned, that we shall use the provincial lists in so far as they may be prepared at the time of a general election in this country. If an election comes within the next year or two we shall use the lists used in the last provincial election. After that time we would take the lists prepared under the Ontario Act, which provides that the lists -must be made up by the assessors in the municipalities, revised by the Courts of Revision, and then printed in a form that is available to every one. These will be the lists that will be made the basis for federal elections. What we say is that those lists in that completed form, prepared by officers who are not appointees of the 'Government, not creatures of the administration, but the assessors chosen by the municipalities themselves, and revised, not by creatures of the Administration but by judges, officers recognized by the Crown and by the Government as independent-we say that where those lists are completed in that fashion, it is wholly superfluous to appoint an army of enumerators simply to add a name to them or strike off one as the case may be. We say that this is entirely superfluous especially when we know that if any man's name is not on the list after these registrars have gone over it he may nevertheless have his vote by being sworn on election day. We believe that if the Government will accept this amendment it will save the country a considerable part of a million dollars if we are to judge by the figures of previous elections already quoted. It will effect an enormous saving in the provinces in which there are voters' lists available, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario particularly, and will add considerably to the confidence the electors
have in the lists. What is necessary in a franchise act is that as far as possible it should be above question; it should be effective; it should be economical and satisfactory in administration; it should satisfy the public conscience; it should secure that acquescence in a verdict which should be the last word on all questions submitted to the people and it should appeal to the sense of right and justice, honesty and fair play. The sanctity of he franchise is a fundamental principle of the institutions of a free people. If we can do anything to give greater confidence and security to the electorate and save the country ,a large sum of money at this time when the public debt, is gigantic and the annual expenditures enormous we will be doing something which ought to be re-garder as a public duty be every member of this House.
With regard to this amendment, let me say that I have taken verbatim et litera-tum the very suggestion made by the minister in charge of this Bill when it was before the committee on May 17. Hon. members will remember that there was a conference between members on both sides of the House to see if in some way or other economies might not be effected in the matter of administration. That conference took place in the minister's office, members from both sides of the House were present and they were absolutely at one as to the wisdom of adopting this precise .amendment. There were other amendments which might have afforded reason for difference but when this amendment was introduced in the House some difference arose over lack of appreciation of its real purpose which was to effect economy and to provide security and the suggestion of the conference was thrown overboard. I have drawn this amendment in the language of the minister himself and I propose to move it in the hope that the House will at this time give its assent to it. I therefore move:
That the Bill be not now read a third time,
but be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend it, by inserting the following words at the beginning of Rule 1 of Schedule B to Section 32 of said Bill:
"No rural registrar shall be appointed in any electoral district in any province where provincial voters' lists are available for the purpose of a Dominion election under the provisions of subsection one of section 32 of this Act. In such cases provincial voters lists shall be adopted as final and complete for rural polling divisions: subject, however, to the right of any person to apply to have his name added

to the voters' list as provided by section 63 of this Act; and subject also to the right of any person resident in a rural polling division to apply in person to the revising officer of an urban polling division in the same electoral district, or if there be no urban polling division in such electoral district, to the nearest revising officer in another electoral district, to have his name added to the voters' list for such rural polling division.
"If under the laws of any province, provision is not made for the enrolment of female voters, or no provincial voters' lists exist which are available for the purposes of a Dominion election under the provisions of section 1 of section 32 of this Act."
The remainder of the section shall he followed out as it stands in the Act. The effect is to leave the law to apply generally, absolutely as it stands this amendment applying only in the provinces to which its special application appears from the face of it.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. .Speaker, the amendment which my hon. friend has just moved was so thoroughly discussed in the committee stage of this Bill that one cannot offer anything to the House now unless by way repetition. I failed to hear anything in the remarks of my hon. friend upon this subject which was not repetition. But I may be permitted a few words to state not only the Government's position but the general scope of this legislation and the principle upon which it was prepared. We took as our model the system of the province of Saskatchewan where they have no voters' list unless a provincial election is called. There they adopt the system in urban municipalities of registration and in rural municipalities of enumeration. From experience in that province, from all inquiries that have been made in regard to the operation of the Act, we are inclined to think that the Saskatchewan system has given satisfaction to all political parties. We adopted it as the model for the Dominion measure seeking as far as possible to have a uniform election law which would appertain in every province of Canada. We built upon that model, but as the matter progressed we found that there were election laws which were distinctly not unform. We found in the Quebec law some provisions which were not included in the Ontario law. In Nova Scotia, it was represented, the present Nova Scotia election machinery was perfect. So in other provinces; but we had to determine upon .some principle and we kept as closely as we could to the principle

upon which we have started, namely, the Saskatchewan system which was registration in the cities, and enumeration, if you so call it, in the country. Well, my hon. friend would like, I have no doubt, the lists of the province of Ontario, but he has failed to point out that those lists to which he refers are not provincial lists in any sense of the word; they are municipal lists, lists prepared for municipal purposes, lists of the ratepayers entitled to vote at .municipal elections. That is what he asks us to accept. These lists are not used for provincial purposes in the province of Ontario until they are added to by a county judge and a board with which he surrounds himself under the provisions of the Ontario Act. But we have met my hon. friend more than half way. We have gone so far as to say that while in Ontario, under your present law, you have no provincial voters' lists, and will not have until a provincial election looms up, we have gone so far as to say we will take the lists in course of preparation, provided they have gone to the point of revision by a judge, with power to add to or take from them for the purpose of our Dominion franchise and Dominion election. Now could a fairer offer be made? We have made it, we have agreed to it, and we have amended the Bill in that way.
We could not accede to my hon. friend's proposal in regard to Nova Scotia. Whether it is truly stated or not, I do not know, but I do know that in regard to the provincial lists in Nova Scotia, there is a deep-rooted conviction on this side of the House that they are not as non-partisan as hon. members opposite are inclined to believe. We could not accept them, but we apply in Nova Scotia the same method and the same principle that we have applied throughout all the other provinces of Canada. In any province, if you have a provincial list not more than two years old, we accept it as the basis for Dominion purposes with power to add or to take from. ,My hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was reasonable. He said:	Make the two-year
limitation and I am satisfied. And I assume that he spoke for the province of Quebec. I remarked then that no member from that province objected. The objection has come from where? From Ontario and Nova Scotia solely, in regard to this clause.
Now my hon. friend says: I am going to move the very amendment which the minister brought into this House. Well, we did have a conference, as the House knows. It was not a conference sought by the Government but one to try and meet the earnest pleas and solicitations of hon. mem-

bers opposite, and we went a long way. We made a suggestion which we reduced to writing and we brought it down to the House and I for one would have agreed to it at that time; but no sooner was it recommended, or brought before the House as a suggestion, than my hon. friend from West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) began to object. Then an hon. member from Quebec took exception, and so it was. It seemed to please nobody, and we withdrew it. Now we stick by the Bill as it was originally introduced, with the single exception in regard to the Ontario municipal lists. Well, I cannot add anything to the discussion which took place in committee. We went over it time and again, it was argued from every point of view, and the committee deliberately determined to reject my hon. friend's proposal. He has added nothing to it to-night, and I can only ask the House to reject it upon this occasion.
Hon. W.. S. FIELDING (Shelburne and Queen's):	My hon. friend states that in
preparing his Bill, he took as a model the legislation of Saskatchewan. The leader of the Opposition in preparing this amendment has taken as a model the words of the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie).


Hugh Guthrie: As I have explained
the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: There was a conference.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: The Bill, which was
manifestly partisan in its purpose, was considered at that conference, and we made it so clear to the hon. gentleman that his Bill was partisan that he came to an agreement with respect to the lists of the province of Nova Scotia which applies also to other provinces to some extent. )He has repudiated that agreement. He has, I claim, been guilty of a breach of faith in respect of the treatment of those lists.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: What is wrong?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I emphatically deny that I have been guilty of any breach of faith. My hon. friend has no right to make any such statement.


Avard Longley Davidson: Take it back.


William Stevens Fielding: I had prepared and
placed in the hands of my hon. friend an amendment respecting the lists of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. In that amendment I had particularly referred to Nova Scotia, but at the request of hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick I had included that
province in it because I was told the lists in the latter province were the same. The Minister of Militia told me he was prepared to accept that amendment if I would strike out some words from it. What were the words? The words were "that the provincial lists were to be treated as final." The hon. gentleman said "If you will agree to accept the other provisions of the Bill we can take your amendment." "What is the provision?" I asked. The hon. gentleman said there was a provision that if in urban districts' anybody had been left off, he could go to the County Judge and make application to get his name on. "There is no objection to -that" I said. "Then there is a provision that a man whose name is left off can go to the poll on election day and in company with two witnesses"-I believe the provision has since been changed to require only one witness-"he can swear to his right to vote and to get his name put on the list and vote." "A have no objection to that", I said, "Though I think it is unnecessary".
Now then, as to the merits of the question.
The Nova Scotia lists are not
10 p.m. prepared by partisans. Again and again the minister, at the dictation of somebody else, has made the statement that they are. It is not founded , on fact; the Nova Scotia lists are prepared by the municipal councils. The municipal councils are composed of the average man in Nova Scotia, Grit and Tory alike, but they are not partisan bodies any more than they are in any other parts of the country. These lists are posted up and every opportunity is given to put on names. There is 'a provision respecting an appeal to the sheriff which is very little used. I believe the records show that very few appeals are made to the sheriff; but if there is a man left off that list he has the right to go to the poll on election day, swear to his qualification, and cast his vote. What more can you ask? By having two lists you are putting the people of the country to the annoyance and the trouble which is always connected with the preparation of an election list. What the hon. gentleman is doing in this ease is this: He is creating .an army of partisans, " registrars " he calls them, to add names to, and strike names off, lists which are as nearly perfect as anything can be. If there is any imperfection the machinery which the hon. gentleman proposed, and which we have been willing to accept, gives the two chances to make it good; the man in the urban district has the right to go to the county judge, and the man in the

rural -district has the right to go to the poll on election day and cast his vote. There is a perfect machinery for preparing of election lists according to the point of view of my hon. friend himself, without the intervention of the registrars. But this provision will give the hon. gentleman the right to appoint, an army of registrars in order that this Bill-which we were told at the beginning was to be fair, and just, and generous -may 'be used as a partisan instrument. That is- the object of appointing these registrars, that is what we are going to be up against.


Mr. A. B. COPP (Westmorland):: 
Mr.   SPTAKER@: Order. I must ask hon. gentlemen and others in the Chamber to refrain from so much conversation, in order that the hon. member who is addressing the House may have an opportunity of being heard.


Mr. EULER:: My reason for asking that the subsection be struck from the Bill was that it placed upon certain British subjects a disability with regard to the franchise. The facts are these. All British subjects who are married women of alien origin, with the exception of those who were born on the continent of North, America, are prevented from exercising the franchise until they have first secured from a judge a certificate which will permit them to vote. I am not at all unappreciative of what has been done by the Government in the direction of removing certain injustices that prevailed in the Franchise Bill, and particularly in this clause; and also of some changes that have been made in the Naturalization Act. I am glad that this was done, as a matter of ordinary justice. But I do regret, Sir, that the Government ini that good work stopped short of rendering complete justice to the people on whose behalf I now speak. The laws that are enacted in this House should be log-

ical; no law enacted at any time should conflict with any other recognized law on our statute book. The naturalization law of this country, and, I think, of very other British country, states very definitely-and the principle has been recognized for many years-that the wife of a British subject is herself a British subject. Then, we have in the law which I am now critising, the clause by which it is proposed to enact that the wife of a British subject is not, in certain cases, a British subject. I contend, Sir, that the two laws are absolutely contradictory and that the only way in which the difficulty may be composed and the differences reconciled is to strike out the; provision which is in conflict with the old recognized British law. In the past, married women of whatever origin, whether of alien origin, native born, or born in other parts of the British, Empire, lived in Canada on terms of absolute equality so far as citizenship was concerned. I know whereof I speak. In the community from which I come we have, as is well known, many women of alien origin-and I am not now referring only to those of former enemy alien origin. Their husbands were naturalized; they all lived together in harmony, none having a feeling of superiority over the others; none having a feeling of inferiority. I say, Sir, that it was a most desirable condition and one that ought to be continued in this country. But if this clause is passed in its present form, the condition of equality, and, necessarily, the feeling of equality, that exists among those people will be destroyed. The fact that the franchise is now conferred upon women is no reason why that equality should be destroyed. I contend, Sir, that the clause should be struck from the Bill; only if that is done will the Franchise Bill be placed squarely upon the basis of citizenship, as it ought to be. I admit that it may be desirable that women of alien birth should also show themselves worthy of naturalization and receive personal naturalization, as I said the other day. I believe that it is right, when both sexes are placed upon an equality with regard to the franchise, that they should receive their rights and privileges as men do. But when I made this suggestion the other day the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) stated that it was impossible to place in the Bill a clause under which married women cf alien birth could receive personal naturalization papers. If the Naturalization Act were amended in that way I believe it would be a proper course. But we have the law as it 
stands to-day, and I submit that it would not be just to make that law retroactive and to place certain men and certain women in this country in a class by themselves,-which necessarily carries with it some feeling of inferiority, or at least places these people on a different basis of citizenship from that of their more favored sisters or brothers.


John Allister Currie: May I put a question to my hon. friend? About ten years ago a law was passed in the German Empire, which, briefly stated, meant "once a German always a German," regardless of any naturalization papers the German might take out anywhere else. A law of that kind used to be in force in Great Britain many years ago; it permitted people to have a dual naturalization. Has the hon. member any reason to believe that that law has been withdrawn in Germany? ,


William Daum Euler: As a matter of fact I do
not know whether there is such a law in Germany or not. I am told that it applies in France as well. I would point out that if such a law exists it certainly was not enacted by the people of whom I speak; they had absolutely nothing to do with it. I suppose what my hon,. friend means to imply is that these people should never be allowed the franchise in Canada-which is [DOT]surely an unthinkable condition.
Now, I say that the law should not he [DOT]made retroactive. If you make it retroactive, men who in the past have voted, .even during the time of war, will be taken out of the class of voters and will he obliged to go before a judge and to prove that they are worthy of citizenship. I say that that should not be done. You also place the same disability upon women who are not of enemy alien countries. The House is apt to assume that the plea is made entirely on behalf of people of former enemy origin. I am free to say that the provision affects ,that class of -women in the constituency which I represent, but I think it should be .also borne in mind that it places under this disability not only women who were horn in Germany and who are now British subjects; not only women who were bom in Austria; but also- women of France, of Belgium, and of Italy. It places under this disability men who have voted in, past years-, and places them under the necessity of appearing before a judge. In ,a practical way, Mr. Speaker, I believe that .the enactment of this law will result in the disfranchisement of a good many British .subjects. These people will be to some

extent sensitive. They have felt themselves Canadians the same as anybody else. Now that the war is over, this Parliament should not do anything that will destroy the harmony that ought to exist among Canadian citizens; and this law will to some extent do that. It will implant in these people some sort of feeling of inferiority. Because of the .discrimination that would be enacted by this law some of them I am sure will not subject themselves to the humiliation of .appearing before a judge. Some of them have voted in the past and they can see no good reason, and I can see no good reason, why these people, some of whom have actually voted during the war, should appear before a judge to show they are worthy of the franchise.
In my opinion a good purpose would be served, and no ill could result, if we placed the franchise definitely on the basis of citizenship, as we would be doing if we struck out this clause. Our law after all gave citizenship, and I contend that citizenship means very, very little if it does not confer the vote. It is either all or nothing. It is practically nothing if you do not give the franchise.
In conclusion, I would a k the Government not to place itself in the position of the Indian giver who gives with one hand and takes away with the other. I therefore beg to move, seconded by the hon. member for George^ Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs):
That this Bill he not read a third time but be referred back to a Committee of the Whole House with instructions to amend the same by striking out in its entirety subsection (2) Qf section 29 of said Bill.
Hon. 'HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General):	I have only a word to say in
regard to this a/mendment. This is certainly one of the questions that have been most discussed during the progress of the present Bill through the House. The discussion arose in the first instance when the Bill was up for its second reading. My hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) on that occasion pointed out to the House the somewhat drastic form in which the clause was at that time drawn, and an intimation was given by a member of the Government during the course of the debate on the second reading that the particular language in which the Bill had been drawn at that time did not convey the real intention of the Government in regard to the matter. The Bill in that respect was modified when it reached the committee stage. In committee the whole question was very fully considered and I think the committee
was divided upon it. The clause was amended and my hon. friend from North Waterloo undertook to thank the committee for what he referred to as half a loaf. He said that half a loaf was better than no bread. The Naturalization Act again has since been amended. The clause which he most strenuously objected to has itself been amended. So that I think the clause as it appears in the Bill to-day having .passed through committee is not a harsh clause, but under the circumstances a very reasonable one. I .point my hon. friend also to the Ontario Act passed in April last. A clause in that Bill is very, very similar to a clause in our Bill.	.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps it was copied from it.


Hugh Guthrie: The Ontario Act is older than the clause in this Bill. It was passed before our Bill was introduced at all. A new Act was also introduced during the late session of the Ontario Legislature and they did enlarge a little on the Bill that is now before this House in respect to appli cation by married women for certificates which entitled them to vote. They enlarged in one or two respects by allowing them to appear before police magistrates and one or two other officials, as well as judges. I cannot imagine that any difficulty is going to result from the provision in the present Act. It was pointed out that in large cities where there are a great many women who will have to apply and obtain certificates, there will not he enough judges to hear the applications. I do not think that at all. The moment this Act receives the consent of Hi.s Excellency, which I assume will be in a day or so, any one who so desires can make application to a judge and obtain a certificate. There is no limitation as to time. 'She has not to wait until until the House is dissolved. She can go at once. It is .perhaps within the realm of possibility she may have two or three years before the next general election within which to obtain her certificate. At all events there is going to be ample time to obtain it. There is going to be no rush about it. I think for these reasons we should support this clause. I therefore cannot accept the amendment.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister realize that these women have to fill much stricter requirements than their husbands who were naturalized years ago?
M.r. GUTHRIE: I do not think the requirements are severe at all. If you will read

the Naturalisation Act you will1 find that the requirements are as to good character, proper age, and the like. These are the qualifications that any country should require be tore granting citizenship. If they can satisfy a court or judge in that respect the certificate is granted. I do not look on it as a hardship or as an inconvenience. It has been pointed out that the exception of those born on the North American continent is a very grave exception. It worried some hon. gentleman that a negress from Florida could vote without making application for a certificate, and iit was said that we discriminated against married women from France and Belgium. Those are very extreme cases-. They will not arise. I would not hesitate a moment to say -that there is nothing in such instances, 'and the Houise should not heed the appeal in that respect. I think the amendment should be voted down.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Will it be necessary for a woman applying before a judge for a certificate to bring her husband's naturalization certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: 
Samuel William Jacobs: The minister stated that one of the qualifications for a woman voter in the circumstance which he has just related is that of character. Now, is there anything in the 'Bill which says that the Character of a male voter is to be taken into -consideration. Why should a discrimination be made .against the women in -this respect? That is something I have yet to understand. I heard i.t mentioned on several occasions when the matter was up both on the second reading and in -committee. The minister says that -a woman in order to have a vote

in Canada must have a good -character, but there is nothing said in regard to the character of the man once he is on -the list. When -this whole question of the qualification of women was first broached in the House-I think it was brought up last year when the By-E-lectio-ns' Act was introduced -I raised objection to it and opposed it as vigorously as I could, and I have objected to it in -all its stages until this the final stage of -the Bill, before it is put upon the statute book. I think it is only right that I should now most formally protest against this law in the name of thousands of women who will find themselves disfranchised under, this Act. There is no question- in my mind, and in the minds of many throughout the country, that this is nothing more or less .than a scheme on the part of the Government to disfranchise -a large body of voters who may possibly vote against the Government. I have stated that in the House on several occasions and I have not yet had .a denial from the Government or any member of it. I know that anything I may say at this moment will have little effect on the Government because they are embarked on the scheme and intend to jam this clause through. I feel that they are very much like the Egyptians of old, whose hearts were hardened against the Israelites; but in that case we are told it was the Almighty himself who hardened their hearts. Well, I do not give the Government -credit for being in association with the Almighty in any respect. Rather do I think that their hearts are hardened by Satan. Now, the only crime which these women have committed is that they have not been born in this country. If they were born on the North American continent, they would be qualified but seeing that they -chose to be born in Europe, a judge must pass upon their qualification. That is what it amounts to, nothing more or less. They must not only -be British subjects; but they must be superBritish subjects. They must not only have married British subjects ' and lived with British subjects, hut their characters must be good and they must have a certificate or imprimatur fro ma judge of the court of the district in which they reside before they can have the right to come before the returning officer and cast their votes, against the Government. In my own city of Montreal from ten to fifteen thousand women will be placed in this category, and their characters will have to be examined while they stand in queues in front of the judge. I can now understand why it is that we have increased the salaries of

judges from $7,000 to $9,000 a year. The reason is that they will have to deal with all these cases under this new franchise Act. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this whole scheme on the part of the Government is intended to prevent as many as possible from voting at general elections. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) this evening asked a question of the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), whether it was not a fact that German women, once they are citizens of the German Empire or the new German Republic, can never change their status-in other words, once a German always a German.


John Allister Currie: They have dual citizenship.


Samuel William Jacobs: The point I want to make is that this Act is not providing against anything of that kind; that is provided for in the Naturalization Act, wherein it is declared that if a person has dual naturalization, one, say, German, and the other by reason of the Act, British, in the case of war that person reverts to his former citizenship and is subject to all the disqualifications of an alien enemy. He or she may be interned or deported or may have to report, etc. That is provided for in the Naturalization Act. But here that question does not arise. We will permit that person to vote only on his being provided with this certificate. Now, where is the justice which permits a man to vote whether he is or is not of good character, but declares that his wife must have a good character, otherwise she cannot vote? Why should we be so particular with regard to the character of the womanhood of the country in respect of those who .are foreign born, when we do not exercise the same scrupulous *care so far as the men are concerned? I have not yet heard of the Acting Solicitor General what the reason for this is. It is purely camouflage; nothing more or less. My good friend from North Waterloo was rather complimentary to the Government. He said that in many respects this was a fair Act.


William Daum Euler: Oh, no.


Samuel William Jacobs: Well, I gathered from the tone of his remarks that he thought it was fair in many respects.


Mr. POWER:: He was merely polite.


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not wish to be tied down, so far as I am concerned, by any remarks made by any hon. member on this side of the House as to the fairness or jus-278
tice of the Act. From the very start I have opposed it, and I have pointed out some of the anomalies of it which were very clearly seen, to-night when we have half a dozen lamendments to improve the Bill, although those amendments are all voted down by the willing instruments of the Government. I will admit that on the face of it this Bill did not look unreasonably unfair, but as soon as it is examined, even only in a cursory way, one cannot but come to the conclusion that it was designed with a view to^ getting it through the House, and that its so-called fair provisions are not fair at all. Altogether, Mr. Speaker, I feel that if this Bill goes through with this clause as it is it will constitute a blot on the Statute Books, and that is the feeling of tens of thousands of people throughout the country. The minister must know that to be the view, because he is in touch with the outside world; and while I am free to admit that he is a fair and just man in many respects, I think in this case he is but a tool of the Government. I have known him on many occasions to be just and fair in all his dealings and decisions.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: When he was on our side.


Samuel William Jacobs: And even since he has been on the other side. He has not yet fallen to^ the depths that one would expect of a minister who is associated with such a Government, It shows that his early up-bringing has had some good effect upon him so far. I do not say how long that wholesorSe' influence will abide with the hon. gentleman, because it is evaporating very rapidly if we are to judge by the nature of the law which he is attempting to put through the House. I want to 'state now that I most solemnly object to the passing of this clause. Although I know that anything I can ,say at the present juncture will have no effect on the Government, I feel it is my duty as a member of this House representing a very large element of the people affected by this measure to rise in my place and protest against the passage of it.
Mr. JOHN A. CURRIE: (Simcoe North): I have no desire to delay the House, and I rise only because my name has been mentioned by the hon. member who has just concluded his remarks and because of a question which I asked the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Now, if I do not mistake the condition of affairs in this country, there are over half a million returned soldiers who, with their mothers, their wives and their sisters, represent over



a million votes that 'will be cast at the next election. That body is unitedly opposed to giving any votes to aliens of enemy origin. The hon. minister, Mr. Guthrie, has made- concessions time and time again to hon. members opposite on this question, and I have no doubt that if hon. gentlemen on the other side thought that by talking for another week or two they could secure such an amendment to the Act as would deprive the soldiers themselves of the vote, although they are anxious that alien enemies should be given that right, they would advance many arguments to the minister. The hon. member (Mr. Jacobs) is learned in the law and he knows international law possibly as well as any other man in this House. He must, therefore, know that the full rights of British citizenship have never been granted to an alien at any stage of the game. The merchant shipping Act of Great Britain has always contained a clause to the effect that .an alien, whether he is naturalized or not, cannot own shares in a British ship and live outside of Great Britain and Ireland. Is that giving the alien full citizenship or rights of citizenship.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Cut out Ireland.


John Allister Currie: Citizenship is not a right; it is a privilege that is granted, and less should be heard in this House in the nature of what we have heard. One would think it was a right. It is not a right. And voting is a privilege, not a right; and the hon. member for North Waterloo has a great deal of hardihood to get up and denounce the minister as he has done tonight for amending the clause as he has amended it. The Government has gone very far-farther than their followers 'in the country and fifty per cent of the people want them to go; there is no doubt about that.


William Daum Euler: Does the tan. gentleman realize that under this clause the soldiers that he speaks of may themselves be disfranchised with their mothers and sisters?


John Allister Currie: The soldiers are not disfranchised if they have fought in the war. The vote is granted to everybody except the woman who has married an Englishman and who, if she wants a vote, can go to the judge and get it. That is no great hardship. At one time she would have to apply to Germany to cancel heT citizenship. According to the old German law, if a man wished to become a British sub-

ject he bad to make application 11 p.m. to the German embassy, for permission to become a. British subject. None of these people who are objecting to-day ever made application to the German embassy to become British subjects. Many of them will still retain their dual citizenship. Returned soldiers at their (conventions and gatherings have unanimously passed resolutions against giving the franchise to alien enemies but this House has not listened to their representations.
The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Euler which was negatived on the following division;

Messrs.
Archambault,	King,
Baldwin,	Knox,
Bourassa,	Lanctot,
Boyer,	Lapointe,
Brouillard,	Leduc,
Bureau,	Leger,
Casgrain,	MacNutt,
Chisholm.	McDonald,
Clark (Bed Deer),	Maharg,
Copp,	Marcile (Bagot),
Crerar,	Papineau,
d'Anjou,	Parent,
D6ch&ne,	Pedlow,
Delisle,	Pelletier,
Demers,	Power,
Deslauriers,	Prevost,
Duff,	Proulx,
DuTrem'blay,	Reid (Mackenzie),
Ethier,	Rinfret,
Euler,	Savard,
Fielding,	Seguin,
Fontaine,	Sinclair (Antigonish
Fournier,	and Guysborough),
Gervais,	Sincliar
Gladu,	(Queene, P.E.I.),
Gould,	Stein,
Halbert,	Tobin,
Hunt,	Trahan,
Johnston,	Truax,
Kennedy (Glengarry	Ve>rville,
and Stormont),	White (Victoria).-59.
NAYS.	
Messrs.	
Allan,	Calder,
Anderson,	Oasselman,
Argue,	Chaplin,
Armstrong (York),	Charters,
Armstrong (Lambton),	Clark (Bruce),
Arthurs,	Clarke (Wellington),
Ballantyne,	Cooper,
Ball,	Cowan,
Beet,	Crothers,
Blair,	Crowe,
Blake,	Cruise,
Bolton,	Currie,
Borden (Sir Robert),	Davis,
Bowman,	Drayton (Sir Henry),
Boyce,	Edwards,
Brien,	Finley,
Buchanan,	Fraser,
Butts,	Fripp,

Fulton,	Nicholson (Algoma),
Glass,	Peck,
Green,	Porter,
Griesbach,	Redman,
Guthrie,	Reid (Grenville),
Harold,	Richardson,
Harrison,	Rowell,
Hay,	Sexsmith,
Henders,	Shaw,
Hocken,	Sheard,
Hughes (Sir Sam),	Sifton,
Lang,	Simpson,
Loggie,	Smith,
Mackie (Edmonton),	Spinney,
Mackie (Renfrew),	Steele,
Maclean (York),	Stevens,
McCurdy,	Stewart (Lanark),
Mclsaac,	Sutherland,
McQuarrie,	Thompson (Weyburn),
Manion, ,	Thompson (.Hastings),
Meighen,	Thompson (Yukon),
Merner, .	ToLmie,
Morphy,	Tremain,
Mowat,	Tweed ie,
Munson,	Wallace,
Myers,	Wigmore,
Nicholson	Wilson (Saskatoon).
(Queens, P.E.I.),	-90.
PAIRS.	
(The list of Pairs i Whips).	is furnished by the Chief
Messrs.	
Cockshutt,	McCrea,
Doherty,	Mareil (Bonaventure),
Charlton,	McCoig,
Davidson,	McKenzie,
McGregor,	Pacaud,
White, Sir Thomas,	Jacobs,
Burnham,	Vien,
Scott,	Cannon,
Lalor,	Ross,
Stacey, . '	Gauvreau,
Clements,	Molloy,
McGibbon (Muskoka),	McMaster,
Halladay,	Kennedy (Essex),
Keefer,	Boivin,
Nesbitt,	Kay,
Bonnell, !	Cardin,
McLean (Royal),	Devlin,
Middlebro,	Robb,
Bristol, i	Lafortune,
Chabot,	Lavigueur,
Cronyn,	McGibbon (Argenteuil),
Douglas (Strathcona)	, Murphy,
Foster (York),	Cahill,
Hartt,	Denis,
McLeod,	Desaulniers,
Nesbitt,	Leeage,
Whidden,	Mayrand,
Douglas (Cape Bretonl.Pafard, [DOT]	
Mewburn,	Pardee,
Elkin,	Midhaud.


Mr. BELAND:: I was paired with the Minister of Customs (Mr. Burrell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.
278i


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I was paired with the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McMASTER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was paired with the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Mareil). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Samuel William Jacobs: I was paired with the
hon. member for Leeds (Sir Thomas White).. Had I voted, I would havd voted for the-amendment.


John Archibald Maharg: Before the main motion is put, I would like to move an amendment. The amendment which I purpose moving will go much further, in so far as purity of elections is concerned, than anything that has yet been submitted to this House, certainly much further than any provision contained in the present Bill. I move, seconded by Mr. Knox:
That Bill 12 be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to Committee of the whole House with instructions to amend the same by adding to clause 10 of the Bill the following clause to be known as clause 3 :
All contributions to a group of candidates or any political party, incorporated or unincorporated, shall be open to the public, and all such contributions shall be published in the same manner as is now provided in this act governing contributions and expenditures in the election of members to Parliament."


James Alexander Robb: I was paired with the Chief Government Whip (Mr. Middlebro). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I was paired' with the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Burrell). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was paired with the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Boys). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Sydney Chilton Mewburn: I was paired with the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskok.a (Mr. McGibbon). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. March). Had I voted, hon. members will be greatly surprised to learn, I would have voted against the amendment.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I was paired with the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon). Had I voted, I would1 have voted against the amendment.


Andrew Ross McMaster: One of the delightful
experiences, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the House on a subject of this kind is the number of members who are present to hear one's voice, to weigh one's argument, and, let me trust, to give a proper verdict upon it. I have an amendment to move which, if members would wait and listen to, they

would, I feel sure, be impelled to support. Let me read the amendment, because its terms constitute the very strongest grounds which can be urged in its support.
I move:
That the Bill be not read a third time, but be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to amend section 10 by adding thereto the following subsection:
"Every advertisement, article, notice, illustration or cartoon appearing in a newspaper, magazine, pamphlet, leaflet or other publication, and having reference to an election, if printed at the expense of any individual, firm, committee, association, society or corporation other than the individual, firm, committee, association, society or corporation which is the printer or publisher thereof, shall disclose that such advertisement, article, notice, illustration or cartoon is being paid for by such individual, firm, committee, association, society, or corporation and shall bear the name and address of the person or persons paying, or agreeing to pay, for the publication thereof.
Any person printing, publishing, or distributing any such advertisement, article, notice, illustration or cartoon, or causing any of such to be printed, published or distributed otherwise than is provided in this section is guilty of an offence against this Act punishable on summary conviction as in this Act provided, and if he is a candidate or the official agent of a candidate is further guilty of an illegal practice."
I presume, Mr. Speaker, that all will agree with me when I make the assertion that what we need is not only honest and disinterested voters, but informed voters. Now, how are voters to get information on public questions? By the spoken word, and also 'by the written word. . We have a great deal of information published at the time of an election, and the object of this section is that voters shall know whence comes the article, whence comes the advertisement, whence comes the cartoon which they are looking at or reaiding. I remember that at the time when Victory Loans were advertised not only by my hon. and learned friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) but by patriotic citizens throughout the country, they used to insert large advertisements in the newspapers, to stimulate the purchase of Victory Bonds, and at the bottom of the advertisements was printed, "This space furnished by"-such-and-such a company; or such-and-such an individual. Something of this sort is required in connection with advertisements which appear supporting one or other political party or one or other political candidate. We have a right to know whether those who are undertaking to advise and improve the people at the time of the election are disinterested or not. For instance, a great deal of literature goes out to-day fathered by the Canadian Reconstruction Committee. Now, if you scratch the Canadian Reconstruction Committee ever so tenderly you will uncover the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We are entitled to know who is undertaking to give us advice, whether in the form of advertisements or in the foTm of articles- a much more insidious form of propaganda. When "boiler plate" is sent out to the country newspapers all over the Dominion in praise of one or other political party or of one or other political leader, it is only right and proper that the reading public should he informed who is paying for these articles so that they may judge as to the value of the advice by judging of the interest of those who tender it. I do not propose at this late hour, Mr. Speaker, to unduly delay the committee with this amendment. It tis an amendment which every one who desires to have honest, clean elections, who desires that the decision should come from a free and independent electorate, honestly informed on the questions of the day, should be able to support. I leave it in the judgment of the House, hoping, if not fully expecting, that the resolution will carry 'by an overwhelming majority.


Hugh Guthrie: This amendment was moved in committee on Saturday last by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He did not press the amendment to a vote on that occasion, but intimated that he or some other hon. member would move it on the third reading oif the Bill, and in the meantime I promised, on behalf of the Government, to give it full consideration. At an earlier date in the session when the matter was first brought to the attention of the committee I was inclined to think that perhaps there was something in the proposal. I am aware that in the State of New York, and perhaps in some other States of the Union, such a law is in force. Any one glancing at the New York papers during election time will see advertisement after advertisement, with at the foot, the name of the person who contributed or paid the advertisement. In this country the proposal now before the House is something entirely new, and I would have supposed that my hon. friend (Mr. MacMaster) in bringing it to the attention of the House would have made some kind of a ease,- would have shown the House that there

was some grievance which should be righted, some wrong that should be remedied. But evidently he has assumed that there is a disease somewhere in the body politic and he has brought forth what in his opinion is a remedy. But is there any disease? Has there been any wrongdoing? Has any harm been done by the method' emlployed in regard :to out newspaper work, our pamphleteering, our poster work, during the course of elections throughout Canada? I submit that no harm has been done in that regard. I have never heard the charge made; consequently I think it is absolutely unnecessary to place such a clause in our election law, at all events at the present time.
There is another thing about it; such an amendment might have the effect of abridging what is an undoubted private right at the present time. I can imagine that there are very able men who are too modest to put their opinions before the public under their own names, too modest to go on platforms and discuss .political questions; who for their own private reasons do not desire their names to he made public, but still do desire to take part in elections. Surely these men are entitled to print pamphlets at their own expense and to circulate them as fully as they deem proper. Would that he wrong? Does the name matter, after all? Is it not the article; is it not the reasoning; is it not the argument that counts, rather than the name of the individual? I suppose the strongest political pamphleteering that ever was carried out was done anonymously. II question whether any one knows to-day who wrote the Letters of Junius, which were published anonymously. They may have been written by a great man, or by a man in 'modest, humble circumstances, but they certainly were effective. Why not permit such a system? I can well understand, too, that a man, through apprehension of trouble, perhaps through motives o!f fear, may desire to issue a statement of his views upon public questions without submitting his name. I heard of one case of an employee who desired to circulate as part of his political propaganda some of the writings of Henry George and of Karl Marx, but was afraid to do it under his own name. He should have the right to do that if he sees fit; nor should his position be jeopardized if he merely desires to lay his opinion before the public. I cannot imagine how a wrong can be done under the present system. I cannot imagine what wrong my hon. friend seeks to remedy. If the -House desired to do something of the kind I think

it might more intelligently have dealt with the proposal, but for my part, sipeaking in this instance on behalf of my colleagues, whom I have consulted, 1 think that under the present circumstances in this country it is wholly unnecessary to inflict upon the private person, the firm, the corporation,- upon anyibodly-the necessity of exposing who has paid for or who -has written, -a political document. I repeat that it is the document that counts, not the writer; it is the argument that will weigh, not the personality of the man. If my hon. friend wanted to do a real -service he would1 insist that every newspaper article, every newspaper editorial, should be signed, as- is done in France, I believe. That might convey to us some, information. No man in the House has a greater Tespect for the press than I -have. 1 read it. I hope that it may have widest and broadest circulation, -but 1 am sometimes bound to confess that it would be better for the public if, when some hon. member quotes in this House from an editorial appearing in the Morning Glory out West or ithe Evening Howler down East, we knew that the writer of the article was a clerk dir awing a salary of $15 or $20 a week. But we do not know that; we take the aigumenft as it is written. It has the authority of a newspaper, but it m-ust stand or fall by its own merits. I see no reason for the adoption of this provision, and I ask the House to vote it down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am somewhat astonished at the remarks of my hon. friend, (Mr. Guthrie). He says that he has studied this amendment somewhat carefully and has submitted it to the Government for consideration. As hon. members will have observed, the burden of his remarks was directed against what he said was an injustice to modest men. He said that many men would like to give their views at election time but would be too modest to put their names to those views as published. He .remarked that the greatest pamphleteering that had been done had been done anonymously, and he cited in that connection the Letters of Junius. Well, there is absolutely nothing in the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster)-which as my hon. friend has mentioned, is an amendment I suggested in committee the other day-which relates in any way to disclosing the name of any person who has written any political article. The amendment has nothing to do with the writing

of any article, and when the Acting Solicitor General speaks of that he is either trying to deceive the committee in regard to the intention of the mover of the amendment, or he has not studied the amendment as he should have studied it. There is nothing, I say, in, the amendment which relates to exposing who is the writer of any article, one way or the other. The amendment is solely aimed at disclosing who is paying for the circulation of certain kinds of literature during election periods; that is all the amendment aims at. I maintain that it is very much in the public interest that the people should know, when articles appear in the press that have been paid for in the nature of advertisements to the extent, possibly, of hundreds of thousands of dollars, whether those articles are the bona fide expression of the views of the paper publishing them, or whether they are articles paid for by some iron and steel merger, some textile interest, some manufacturing, packing, canning, financial, commercial, or other interest that is willing to contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, to the winning of the campaign. What is the whole purpose of the law as it stands in regard to contributions for political purposes if it is not to make impossible large contributions by special interests to campaign funds where the source from which they come is not stated? The law as it stands should be broad enough, or ought to be considered in such a way, as to cover contributions of thife kind. Section 10 says:
No unincorporated company or association and no incorporated company or association other than one incorporated for political purposes alone shall, directly or indirectly, contribute, loan, advance, pay, or promise or offer to pay any money or its equivalent to, or for, or in aid of, any candidate at an election, or to, or for, or in aid of, any political party, committee, or association, or to or for. or in aid of, any company incorporated for political purposes, or to. or for. or in furtherance of, any political purpose whatever, or for the indemnification or reimbursement of any person for moneys so used.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if ithat section means /anything it surely means that where a great concern like one of those mergers I have spoken of offers to pay a million dollars for campaign purposes land desires to make the contribution, in the form of paying different papers to publish certain articles or for pamphlets to be distributed- that such a contribution is in aid of a candidate or in aid of a political party. I am
astounded at the minister taking exception for one minute to the proposal which has been made, because under the law as it stands any contribution from these big interests for the purpose of winning elections, a contribution which takes the form of paying for the circulation of literature, is a contribution for political purposes and should bear on the face of it the name of the party wha makes the contribution. The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) does not suggest, in the amendment which he has moved, that these contributions be not made. All he has suggested is that the public shall know, when they read an advertisement or an article that is being paid for by some special interest for political purposes, that that interest is paying for it; that the view expressed is not the opinion of the paper itself but is something that is paid for and inserted in that way. My hon. friend does not take exception to a newspaper printing anything that it pleases, through its own editors or any persons whom it cares to employ. What appears in a newspaper from its own staff, or is contributed, no matter from where it may be collected, can appear just in the form in which it is at this time. The amendment does not touch a matter of that kind at all. What it aims at is the disclosure of the source of payment where articles are paid for by special interests. Where, for example, some interest goes into a newspaper office and asks that a certain article be published, and the newspaper says, "We cannot publish this article; it is not in accord with our 12 m. views," or " We have other views to express," and the interest turns round and says: "Will: you publish it if we pay for it?" " What is your price?" and the newspaper names its price and takes the article-I say that articles taken in that way should bear on the face of them something to the effect that: this article contributed by so-and-so is being paid for by so

and-so. It must be remembered that this amendment has reference only to literature at election time. The Act defines what is " during an election ". I say it is in the public interest that these large election contributions by wealthy financial, commercial or industrial interests should be disclosed when they are intended to have a direct influence upon public opinion during the period of an election. Why, you poison the springs of public opinion at their source unless you protect the public against that kind of purchasing of the press, because that is what it is. It

is not only purchasing the press, but deceiving the public as well.


John Allister Currie: Surely my hon. friend does not mean to slander the press of the country to the extent of saying that its pages are open to purchase? Political matters of that kind are generally put in as advertisements.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not making any charge against the press of the country, and my hon. friend need not try to misconstrue my remarks as such. What I am saying is that when a large corporation goes to a newspaper and says " We want certain things inserted in your newspaper," and the newspaper refuses unless it is paid for the insertion, a purchase takes place.


John Allister Currie: It goes in as advertising
matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it goes in
as advertising matter, I am perfectly satisfied. That is all I am asking-that it shall go in as advertising matter, that it shall not appear to the reader to be part of the expression of opinion of the press itself. I am asking that it shall show on its face that it is paid-for material, and by whom it is paid for. That is all I am asking, and I cay that a paper that is unwilling to insert after paid material, the fact that the material is being paid for, is being purchased to that extent. That is what I mean by the purchasing of the press. I do not say that the press should not publish anything it wishes. It should have the greatest possible freedom in publishing everything, but I do say that where contributions are made by powerful interests to election funds in the form of paid-for material that goes into the press or magazines or into any printed form, the source of such material should be known to the electorate, so that when forming a judgment they may weigh the argument in the light of the source from which it comes. That is the whole purpose of the amendment. I hope that the House, for the sake of purity of elections, for the sake of the formation of an intelligent public opinion at election time, for the sake of giving the country confidence in a Parliament that may be returned, confidence that it has been returned through a contest fought out with a knowledge of facts and conditions as they are, fought in the open in regard to all phases of arguments that may be used-I hope that in the interests of the press, of the public, of purity of elections, and of all that goes to make our political institutions 
strong and durable and respected, the House will see its way to adopt this amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I move that the
House return to the order of motions. I understand that some formal motions have to be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 212 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mildred E. B. Martin.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 213 (from the Senate) for the relief of Arthur John Frankling.-Mr. Wall-
Bill No. 213 (from the Senate) for the relief of Nelson Alexander Boylen.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 215 (from the Senate) for the relief of Mahala Burton.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill No. 216 (from the Senate) for the relief of Joseph Henry Forbes.-Mr. Wallace.

Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House have agreed to their address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency will be pleased to transmit a joint address to His most Excellent Majesty the King most humbly praying that he may graciously he pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, by filling up the blank therein with the words "And the House of Commons of Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Rt. Hon. Sir Robert Borden (Prime Minister) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Steele in the Chair: Resolved, That it is expedient to bring in measures to amend the Salaries Act, and the Senate and House of Commons Act, and provide,-
1.	That the salary of the member of the King's Privy Council holding the recognized position of First Minister shall be fifteen thousand dollars per annum and each of the following ministers ten thousand dollars per annum, that is to say,-
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General,
The Minister of Militia and Defence,
The Minister of Customs and Inland Revenue, The Minister of Finance,
The	Minister	of	Railways and	Canals,The	Minister	of	Public Works,The	Minister	of	the Interior,
The President of the King's Privy Council for Canada,
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
The Postmaster General,
The Minister of Agriculture,
The Secretary of State for Canada,
The Minister of Dabour,
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, The Minister of Trade and Commerce,
The Minister of Immigration and Colonization,
The Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.
2.	That the salary of the Solicitor General of Canada shall be seven thousand dollars per annum.
3.	That the Member occupying the recognized position of Deader of the Opposition in the House of Commons shall he paid an additional annual allowance of ten thousand dollars.
4.	That the salaries of the Speaker of the Senate and of the Speaker of the House of
ace.
[Stage Direction]
Commons shall he the sum of six thousand dollars per annum each, and that the salary of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons shall be four thousand dollars per annum.
5.	That for every session of Parliament which extends beyond fifty days there shall he payable to each Member of the Senate and House of Commons attending such session a sessional allowance of four thousand dollars, and that a Member shall not be entitled to the sessional allowance if he does not attend a sitting of the House of which he is a member on at least three-fourths of the days upon which such House sits, and that the allowance for any less number of days shall be twenty-five dollars for each day's attendance. A deduction at the rate of twenty-five dollars per day shall be made from the said sessional allowance for every day beyond fifteen on which the Member does not attend a sitting of the House of which he is a member if the House sits on such day. Provided, that, in the case of a Member elected or appointed after
- the commencement of a session, no day of the session previous to such election or appointment shall be reckoned as one of such fifteen days, and each day on which the House sits when the member is in the place where the session is held but is by reason of his illness unable to attend any such sitting as aforesaid, shall be reckoned as a day of attendance at such session, for the purpose of the indemnity; and a member shall, for the said latter purpose, be held to be in the place where the session is held whenever he is within ten miles of such place.
6.	That sections twelve and thirteen of the Senate and House of Commons Act be amended by adding the Member of the King's Privy Council holding the recognized position of First Minister to the list of offices mentioned therein which may be held without disqualifying the holder thereof from sitting and voting in the House of Commons, any one of which may be resigned by the holder thereof and any other of which may within one month of the resignation be accepted by such holder without vacating his seat in the House of Commons, unless a new administration has been formed in the meantime and has occupied the said offices.
Robert Laird Borden: This is a motion upon which I desire to speak somewhat fully, but I do not intend to do so this evening. The subject has already been discussed in the House and I venture to suggest that the debate upon it might take place upon the second reading of the Bill, which according to Parliamentary practice is the time at which the principle of the Bill is discussed. I would suggest to the committee that the resolution might be passed without committing any one in the slightest degree and with the full understanding that all debate on the subject shall take place on the second reading and in committee on the Bill. This proposal is not made with the idea of restricting debate in any way, but merely that the debate may not take place twice. I hope that the committee will see its way clear to accede to this suggestion.


William Stevens Fielding: Would it not be desirable that two Bills should be prepared rather than one? The Act respecting ministers' salaries and the Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons are two distinct things, but the whole matter is dealt with in one resolution. I think there would be an advantage in separating them. I offer the suggestion to the right hon. gentleman, when it comes to the question of the Bill, that there should be two separate Acts. I think it would be more convenient if they were dealt with separately.


Robert Laird Borden: I left the drafting of the Bill altogether to the Parliamentary Counsel. I think he put the whole matter into one Bill, but if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding) attaches importance to the suggestion he has made I will endeavour to change it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not attach enough importance to it to press the matter. I only suggest to the right hon. gentleman that it would conform to good legislative practice, but having made the suggestion I am content to leave it in his hands.


Robert Laird Borden: I rather think my hon. friend is right in his suggestion to have it in the form of two Bills. However, it was not brought to my attention before. Perhaps under the circumstances it might be introduced in the form in which it has been prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel on whom I have relied in the matter and who has placed it in this shape.
Resolution reported.
Right Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 219, to amend the Salaries , Act and the House of Commons Act.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
The Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $300,000.
Further amount required, $5,700,000.
['In order to keep the arrangement with the honi. member for Three Rivers I move that the committee rise and report progress.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 4 a.m., Tuesday.\nTuesday, June 29, 1920.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to make a . suggestion to my hon. friend the minister (Mr. Ballantyne) who is in charge of these Estimates, namely, repeat the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) the other evening, that when we vote on these Estimatesi we vote on them as they have been brought down, first on what is

suggested in the Main Estimates and, second, on what is suggested in the Supplementary Estimates. The hon. gentleman the other evening asked the committee to consider the two items together. I think Hansard will show that the expression used was "to consider them together." Certainly, I gave my consent on this side on the understanding that it was the consideration and not the Voting of the items together that was proposed. I think the chances are that the Speaker of the House will rule that we have no power to vote on the two items as though they were one item. The minister, I am sure, will make more progress with his Estimates if he allows them to be voted on in the order in which they were presented to Parliament than if he tries to prevent that on a mere technicality.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: According to the Rules of the House the Main and Supplementary Estimates could not be considered or voted on together without the unanimous consent of the committee. The leader of the Opposition will remember that on Saturday night last the Chairman asked for the unanimous consent of the committee to consider both of these and there was no objection to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To consider
*both, but not to vote on both. I am absolutely agreeable that we should consider both so that we will only have one discussion and be done with it, but I think we should vote on the Main Estimates first and then on the Supplementary Estimates. If my hon. friend is unwilling to agree to that we will have to use whatever means are necessary to ensure the proper consideration of these items.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: I understood
that the general discussion on the naval policy had not been concluded. I do not know how far I am right in that, as I was not here; but I should like for a very few minutes to make some observations in connection with the vote. I want to be as brief as possible, but if I did not say something at this time I should be untrue to certain convictions to which I cannot be untrue without being untrue to myself. I concede to the minister and to the Government that in introducing this very considerable-this very large-vote they were confronted with a difficulty. We had extended naval discussions a few years ago and at that time a number of us occupying seats on this side of the House, were strongly committed to the principle of a Canadian
navy. I concede that the Government had to take that into their consideration and they had to further consider the fact that we in Canada had wholeheartedly fought alongside the Old Land and other portions of the Empire through the Great War. But, having conceded that, I must say that there are other very weighty considerations which occur to my mind and which would lead me to express the opinion that the Government had been shortsighted in accepting the offer of the British Government at this particular time. Having regard to the financial position of the country on the one hand and to the fact that there is to be an Imperial Conference, as I understand, in. 1921, to discuss the whole question of the naval defence of the Empire, I think they were shortsighted to have accepted the offer. I think they might very well have based themselves where I base myself in criticism of their policy-they might very well have said to Lord Jellieoe, and the Admiralty, and the British Government: Well, we are meeting to discuss this matter with the representatives of the whole Empire at an Imperial Conference in 1921, and we refuse at this time to commit the country to what is a very large naval expenditure which, in the very nature of things, will lead to much larger naval expenditures, if history has anything to teach us upon this subject. I base myself there first in criticism of the Government in having embarked upon this policy. They would have saved money in the meantime; they would have saved a very divided state of opinion in the country; they would have saved-if rumour informs us rightly-considerable divisions in the ranks of their own party, which appear in caucus if they do not appear in Parliament; they would have saved this political discussion at a moment when we all want to get away to our homes after a somewhat arduous session. There are other considerations that I think ought to have weighed with the Government in approaching this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I was very much impressed by the remark made by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr Lemieux), when he said that the whole question of naval defence, the whole' question of the naval defences of the Empire, the whole question of armaments, has been vastly changed by the .lessons of the war and by the conditions of the peace; and the fir it consideration I should like to advance in that connection is this: I should like to quote an old hackneyed saying, "that arm-

aments depend upon policy." Now, what is the policy of the British Government at the present moment? Their first item of policy which has any bearing on the question of armaments, from my point of view, is that the Old Country has entered heartily into the support of the League of Nations. If that be our policy, if that be the policy which we believe to be the one that should guide the most advanced nations of the world then surely it has a most important bearing on our attitude to armaments. Because if you are going to make the League of Nations a success, if you are going to have combination of the strongest peoples of the world to prevent war, then I submit to this committee that you are not going to do that by following the old path of believing that war is eternal, and that therefore the competition in armaments must recommence, with the horrible experiences the world has gone through in the last six years. I have heard opinions of the lightest character expressed about the League of Nations and its chances of success in this world. Mr. Chairman, I have no sympathy with those expressions; and at this point I want to pay a compliment to my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) who seems to be the one member of the Government, the one public man of Cabinet standing, who in this country has devoted himself with wholeheartedness, so far as his leisure would permit him, to making Canada's contribution to the League of Nations a real success.
I pass from that consideration in regard to my hon. friend to a consideration of the men who are behind the League of Nations in Great Britain. Unfortunately, on this continent, President Wilson, who did splendid service in this connection has been put out of commission-he has had an unfortunate illness. But in Great Britain the world is distinguished in having A. J. Balfour, of almost,unparalleled experience and ability in politics; Lord Grey, whose knowledge of foreign policy is not exceeded by any one; Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Bryce, and numbers of others of little less calibre that we could mention, who not only believe that the League of Nations will be a success but are working might and main to make it a success. Now if that is the policy of Canadian statesmen-and here I speak to both sides of the House-I confess that I think we should have spent our time better if we had voted a sum of money to bringing our own people ud to the high mark of civilized thought upon this question instead

of voting two and a half millions at almost the first session of Parliament after the war is over, for the buying, or upkeep, of vessels of warfare. I cannot disguise from myself in this connection that we have had an expression of an opinion from one of the calmest minds in the Empire or the world, Viscount Grey; that another war would mean the ruin of civilization. That is a very weighty opinion coming from such a source, and if we subscribe to it, we will be careful ere we embark upon this war of armaments, because the one war leads inevitably to the other one. And that leads me logically to this consideration that if the war did anything it demonstrated the absolute fallacy of the old pagan doctrine which has come down to us ifrom thousands of years and has been preached up to the very commencement of the last war-the fallacy that to prepare for war is the best way to maintain peace. Mr. Chairman, I submit that no man with ordinary intelligence who looks at the history of this war and the events that preceded it, will ever maintain that old fallacy again. Why, what did we have? If ever a war would have been prevented by preparation for war then the last war surely never would have occurred. We had the nations of Europe arming and arming by sea and land, until they were staked against one another and held back like dogs in the leash, until the leash broke, and the most civilized peoples	of	mankindpoured themselves out	in	slaughterupon one another, with the result that civilization	was	shaken
to its very foundations, and it is hardly yet at the point at which it has recovered. Now there is this further consideration in this connection-it is a supplementary thought to that which I have just tried to impress upon the committee: that we cannot any longer logically hold that to prepare for war is the best way to keep the peace. Sir, the very opposite is the truth. As sure as the nations embark in a competition of armaments, so surely, sooner or later, will they lend thmselves in war again. That is one of the lessons of the late war that we cannot hide from ourselves. But the war has demonstrated this further supplemental fact, as I mentioned* in a word or two uttered upon the military estimates-that a nation not warlike at the beginning of a war can be one of the most potent factors in the final and concluding stages of that war. For proof of that I only ask Canadians to reflect, as they may do with pride, upon what happened by the

influence especially of our own country at Amiens and Cambrai, at Lens, and at Mons.
Now another practical consideration, which I think gives strong supplemental support to my main contention, that the Government might easily have avoided this situation at the present time! Against whom are we going to fight in the immediate future? In answer to that question, when it has been discussed before, the only suggestion I have heard was that we might have a war between Japan and America. Well, that could not possibly implicate the British Empire, because Japan is our Ally, and 1 do not think myself that a war of anything like the dimensions of the last or which is at all likely to implicate Canada, can take place in the near future. Sir, it is not only of moral importance, because the people are fed up with war, it is o.f economic importance. I repeat, it is of economic importance. Where would you get your munitions, where would you get your food supplies? We have so impoverished ourselves, so impoverished our supplies, that our difficulty now,

I speak of all the nations that were implicated in the war-is not to supply huge armies abroad, but to feed the ordinary run of our population at home. In the face of that fact, am I not justified in claiming that in the immediate future a war that would implicate Canada is almost unthinkable, and certainly it is unthinkable to my mind before the Imperial Conference of 1921. Under those circumstances, would it not have been wise for the Government to give us a breathing space and to have asked the imperial Government to give us a breathing space? Would it not have been wise to have been influenced by these considerations?
Sir, there is another consideration that comes to me here. This expenditure is not only useless, it is much worse than that, for it commits us to a wrong line of policy and at the same time it does not, in all probability, provide the means which would be of the slightest use to us if we did unfortunately find ourselves at war. Why, I have a recollection of Canada beginning a navy before, Sir, and as a Canadian I was ashamed to see our newspapers printing cartoons and writing about our small beginnings in that direction. I was ashamed to see things, and felt humiliated to the ground; and I contemplate that before a year or two is over, we will have the same kind of literature and the same kind of cartoons with respect to the vessels which are being given by the Admiralty -probably because they are nearly obsolete vessels already-and given to us that we might embark on an expenditure of two and a half millions for their upkeep.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Would my horn,
friend allow me a question?


Mr.   GLABK@Red Deer: We are in committee and I propose to finish my remarks, if the hon. minister will be so good. I was going to .say what will probably satisfy him on the point he was raising. If the vessels were -up-to-date at the present moment- and I concede all that to him-they certainly will be obsolete in five years. That i.s my answer to the point my hon. friend was going to put, -and he can put it -as -strongly as he likes. Well, as we are not likely,, in my judgment,-and I am following from point to point -as quickly as I cam-to have a war within that time in which we will be implicated at sea, if those vessels will be obsolete in three years-and we know the brevity of life of these vessels; this was all discussed -at length years ago in this House -then more than ever I contend that we are -committing ourselves t-o a useless expenditure -at a moment when it could be avoided by the exercise of ordinary foresight and of ordinary political -strategy in dealing with the Mother Country.
Not only does- the question ari-se in one's mind as to Wh-at will be the use of these vessels, but if we are thinking in terms of war-and I suppose we have to as long as we discuss these mattersr-then we have to have other considerations in our minds. Mr. Chairman, I do not readily think with those people who -say that in a thousand years you will have wars in the world just as you have always had them. After all, Sir, the world does improve. Less than a hundred years ago in my native county of Northumberland, two members of the nobility fought an electoral -contest and u-sed language which was not exactly pleasant to one another. After the contest they went down to the -seashore and fought a duel. The law of the land allowed that sort of -thing at that ti-m-e. But duelling is not allowed in Great Britain now, -nor in Canada, nor in any other part of the British Empire. So that the world does improve. And I am one of those who hold that if the best influences of the best -men. in the civilized nations of the world will take up the League of Nations idea and work for peace, they will do a great deal to promote better ideas among the nations of the world and


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Michael Clark: I am very glad to have that explanation. His smile soon left him when I told him it would be taken off him, and taken off good and plenty. If we are going to fight the next war with chemi-oals, we had better spend money on teaching our people chemistry. If we are going to fight it in the air, we had better make our Air Board a reality instead of a name, and had better establish an air service in Canada which will be useful in the meantime for commercial purposes within our own country.
And I would suggest that if you want to have vessels of war kept floated and run by Canadians, you will have to teach your people to go to sea. If you would only take your minds from war considerations

and study how great navies have been built u,p in the world, you would find that you would be doing better service for the defence of Canada at sea in the future by altering your fiscal policy than by all the naval expenditures that this Parliament can be induced to make by the persuasive accents of my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affaire. -What is the use of building navies if your fiscal policy drives you off the ocean? And that is what it has done. It is what it did to America; it is what it has done very largely to Canada. I do not want to enlarge upon what is a somewhat favourite theme with me, but my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) knows very well, there was a time when Nova Scotia was a great seafaring province, but to-day her great merchant fleets have disappeared off the coast of that province which has honoured itself in honouring him.
Now I want to come to a practical consideration which I would like to impress upon statesmen young and old in this country, and that is that when the Imperial Conference comes about I think it would be a great mistake-and I want to impress this very earnestly u,pon both sides of this House-I think it would toe a great mistake for statesmen from any part of the Empire, and especially from Canada, to go to that conference committed to a view which I understand already dominates the mind of Lord Jellicoe, namely, that we should have a uniform system of naval defence throughout the Empire. Canada's position in this matter is very different from that of Australia. I want to suggest that when the Imperial Conference is held, if the instructions and lessons of the late war are thoroughly kept in mind, we should try if we could not find a system of co-operation between the different parts of the Empire. Australia* in the very nature of things as long as war vessels are built, must have far more importance in sea defence than Canada has. And I want to go a step further in that consideration. What has been the lesson of all wars as to the termination of them? What was the lesson of the last war? What won? I am not sure that I should say the last man in the field; I am not sure that I should say the last vessel on the sea, or the last aeroplane in the air. What won in the last analysis was the last shot in the financial locker. That is what won. What would be the lesson of that, if I am right?

and I hold that I am right. It was won by the tremendous economic resources of the

United States, which were brought to the aid of the British Navy and of the armies of all the Allies. It was when those tremendous economic resources were brought to our aid that Germany faded away, was put out of business. The lesson of that would surely be that while Australia must have some naval defence, in Canada, if we are to continue this loose confederation, of which all the parts are free, known as the British Empire, we would do better, possibly, permanently to have a system of cooperation between the different parts of the Empire. But certainly we should have done better to have that system of co-operation until the Imperial Conference was held; we should have done better to give our people a breathing space from naval expenses, especially at a time when, I think I have offered considerations which go far to prove, such naval expenditure useless because it is unnecessary.
I come back to my first point, which shall be my last. I think the Government was shortsighted to accept the offer of this vessel. I myself think that Lord Jellicoe put one over a very sharp man, our own First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Ballantyne); I think the British Admiralty put one over on him. We were shortsighted and badly guided. We had so easy a course; it was to say-I repeat: Let us leave this thing in abeyance; let us till our vast western plains; let us rer-establish our financial resources, and when we meet in the Imperial Conference, whoever are the representatives of Canada will enter into all these weighty and wide considerations and will work out a system of co-operative defence which will make an Empire bigger and abler to defend itself in the future than it was in this war.
I want to say one word more. I want to impress upon the Government and all sections of political thought in this House that in armaments it is the first step that count. If the nations begin to embark once more in a competition, whether by chemicals, or in the air, or by sea, or on land,-leave all thought of the League of Nations,-then take it from me, Mr. Chairman, that another war in the future is as *certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow morning. In the meantime we should have gone very carefully; we need not have committed ourselves to this expenditure at this time. If the conversion of my hon. friends on the other side to the principle which we on this side defended so strenuously in very different times, as my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has pointed out; if their conversion has been brought about through
Canada having attained what has been called a national status, then I want to warn hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House that they will have to see to it that they change the status of their national pocket-book.


Robert Laird Borden: I should like to say, in reference to what my hon. friend (Mr. Clark, Red Deer) has advanced to the committee, that we cannot determine questions of this kind by saying: "If the next war is to be fought in the air," or "If the next war is to be fought with gas." If my hon. friend would put forward any practical suggestion founded on results that are already demonstrated, I for one would be most willing to listen to him and to give every weight to his suggestion. But what advantage is it to a Government responsible in these matters to say that the next war may be fought in the air or that the next war may be fought in some other way, and therefore we are to do nothing at the present time? I know something of the very eminent statesmen who have been alluded to by my hon. friend-statesmen who are as earnest as any one in their desire to promote and strengthen the purpose of the League of Nations. Does my hon. friend know of any one of these eminent statesmen who is prepared to abolish and scrap the British navy under existing conditions? I have not heard of one of them who is prepared to do that.


Michael Clark: I think I have already answered that question. I stated in almost the last words I uttered that in the island portions of the Empire, like Great Britain and Australia, preparations by sea could not in the present condition of the world be absolutely put to one side.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon.
friend not Tecognize that the security of the seas is essential to every part of our Empire, and is just as essential to US' as it is to Great Britain, or Australia, or New Zealand, or South Africa? I should like my hon. friend to tell us, if he can, what advantage it would be if we should plant and sow and Teap, if the crop, when harvested, could not seek the markets of the world beyond the seas. How does my hon. friend imagine that the safety of the ocean highways is not of very marked im-
1 a.m. portance to this' country as well as it is to Great Britain? I think my hon. friend misunderstands the purpose of the Estimate which has been put forward by the Minister of Naval Affairs. That Esti-

mate is largely in fullfilment of a measnre which, was presented to this House ten years ago and which received, if I remember correctly, the support of my hon. friend himself. Under those circumstances I can hardly realize the force of the position which my hon. friend has put forward today. He has spoken of the security afforded, by the -League of Nations and he has properly referred to. the endeavour of my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) to impress upon the people of this country the .supreme importance of committing themselves to the purpose which is embodied in the League. No one is more sincere in his desire that the people of this country shall be impressed by that purpose than I am. But I should like to inform my hon. friend that when the League of Nations was being sanctioned in Paris, no less than eighteen or nineteen different military campaigns were being carried on in Europe. A great many of them have been carried1 on since, and some of them are being carried on to-day. I venture to say that no one would be quite so confident in the ability of the League of Nations to control these matters under .present conditions as to suggest that the entire naval defences of the Empire should be abolished in advance. The navy represents force, and so do methods of Government in any civilized country represent force. But when, force has behind it the just purpose of maintaining order, of sustaining orderly Government, of upholding justice among people in their dealings with each other, force is not to be despised or sneered at. If my hon. friend suggests that force has always been provocative of war, I venture to point out to him that the force embodied in the naval strength of Great Britain has never been used for that purpose and' has never been provocative of war; that is. my firm belief. On the contrary, I believe that the force typified by the naval strength of this Empire has on. more than one occasion averted war. If my hon. friend will consult his recollection of the historical events, of the past twenty-five or thirty years he will be the first to concur in the observations I make in that respect.
Now, the naval Estimate which the Minister of Naval Affairs has presented to the House, is, under the circumstances, a very moderate one. It does not represent anything that could be regarded as a permanent policy. I myself took the ground years ago that a permanent naval policy, in the sense in which I understand it, should not be embarked upon in this country until the 
people had had an opportunity to pronounce upon it, and I hold that opinion to-day just as strongly as I did before. But in the meantime are w<e to abolish these dockyards to the upkeep of which we are committed by very solemn engagements, and are we to put absolutely to one side the purpose and undertaking which was embodied in the Act of 1910 which had the support of my hon. friend and myself? That is a question and it seems to me the only question for the committee to consider, and I hope that hon. gentlemen will see their way to approve of the Estimate which my colleague has offered.


William Stevens Fielding: 

generous .proposal is so generous that one is wiser respectfully and politely ito decline it. I do not think any harm would toe done if the Government were to say to ithe British Government "We much' appreciate what you have done, and we wouldi be glad enough to make use of your ships. There may come a time later on when we will want your ships, but just at present we would! rather not accept them, because we have not yet decided on our fulture naval .policy."


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Will the hon. member be good enough to tell the members of this committee whether he would be willing to carry on with the Niche and Rainbow?


William Stevens Fielding: A good deal depends
on the purposes for which they are required. For some purposes, I imagine, the Rainbow and the Niobe could be used. That is a technical question. The Niobe was a good enough ship to render service in time of war, hut she was tied up by the Government at the wharves in Halifax. She was tied up at the time German submarines were sinking our sailing vessels near Seal island off the coast of Nova Scotia. When the Crown Princess Cecilie came with a great cargo,' almost of gold, with immense riches, she could have been taken on the high seas by the Niobe if hon. gentlemen opposite had not had her tied up at Halifax. They have been ultimately shamed into doing something, and norw they come and tell us about the good service rendered. Of course, she rendered good service, but she would have done better service if she had been continued in the work that she had been doing instead of bding dismantled at Halifax when the war broke out. With regard to submarines, I do not understand why Canada wants vessels of this kind. I am not a naval man and I have no expert knowledge of naval affairs; but I have an opinion of my own touching this 'question, and if I have one fault to find with the treaty of Versailles, it is the fact that it did not provide for the destruction of every submarine. The submarine is the pirate of the ocean. She has no legitimate purpose in commerce. She is not needed for any commercial purpose whatever, and it was only for vile purposes indeed that the Germans used her. Speaking in the presence of naval men who know the subject better than I do, and against -whose opinions I will not pit my own, I must say that I regard it as being a matter for regret that we are asked to receive these submarines. If I remember rightly, the Treaty of Versailles obliged

the powers to destroy the German Zeppelins, and it would have been better had it also obliged them to destroy every submarine that existed, and made it a part of the duty of the League of Nations to see that submarine warfare should not be practised in the future.
I say that there are reasons why we should not proceed further in this matter. The first is that we have not the money; second, there is the fact that we are not in a position to-day to declare any extensive naval policy; and last, but not least, is the fact that if you .accept these ships from Great Britain you accept a white elephant. We should say with great gratitude that we appreciate the offer which Great Britain has made us but that we cannot find it possible at the present time to avail ourselves of it. Later on we may have the ships when we can afford to undertake a definite policy in this direction. We are not going to ignore naval responsibility and refuse to take our share in naval affairs, but in view of all that has happened, let us have a breathing spell, let us have time to think matters over, and le,t us devote the money to things more urgent than this:


Mr. ROWELL:: As the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) has been good enough to refer to me and to speak of the interest which I have taken in the work of the League of Nations, I desire to make one or two observations in connection with the Estimate now before the committee. I appreciate what my hon. friend has been good enough to say. I believe in the League of Nations with all my heart, and I believe that the ideals for which it stands will ultimately prevail, no matter how great the difficulties that now face it or *how many the discouragements which those who are interested in it may encounter. I believe in it because I am convinced that civilized1 peoples will come to see that reason is a better method of settling international disputes than the sword; and just as we have departed from the old methods of settling our disputes as between individuals by force, and have established' the reign of law in our domestic affairs, we ultimately will establish the principles and rules of international law in the settlement of international disputes. But while that is so, no one who is not blind to existing conditions in the world can deny the fact that we have not yet reached the stage where there is whole-hearted acceptance of that ideal by all the peoples of the world. The question has been Taised as to why the

League of Nations does not put a stop to existing wars, and it has been argued against the League that its inaction in this respect indicates its weakness. I do not by any means accept that view. The League of Nations was not organized to put an end to existing wars, but to preserve the world's peace once peace had been established; and that peace has not so far been thoroughly established throughout the world. But, as I have said, every one who is not blind to the facts must recognize that we have not yet reached that stage where the public opinion of the world .is prepared to accept and fully carry out the ideals of the League of Nations. We must steadily work toward that end in all the countries concerned. Now, what is the situation of the British Empire? And in this respect the British Empire differs from every other political unit in the world today. The United States is composed of a group of states lying side 'by side, connected by great systems of transportation, bound together by lines of land communication and water communication on their lakes and rivers, and the whole composite system is under the protection and control of the government. They can police and protect all their highways of traffic from one end of that country to the other. They have the absolute means at their disposal to preserve communication between New York and San Francisco and between Buffalo on the north and the Gulf of Mexico on the south. The same is equally true of the German Empire. That Empire is composed of a group of states lying side by side and bound together by systems of railway transportation, all under the protection and control of the government. What is the situation in regard to the British Empire? The Empire consists of a group of states' or nations widely separated, bound together 'by the oceans, the great highways of traffic of the world. There is only one way that the British Empire can keep open these highways of commerce; there is only one way that we can maintain and control our systems of water transportation that connect the various portions of the Empire, and that is by being in a position to police (the high iseas and to protect our commerce against hostile attack. We must keep open the freight and passenger routes throughout the world in order that the various parts of the Empire may be kept in constant touch and free communication. That cannot be questioned. Then, if that be so, is the whole burden of keeping open these lines of communication to rest upon 279J
the Mother Country? I appreciate the serious financial responsibilities which this country faces at the present time, and I do not believe that we should undertake any obligations that we can honourably avoid undertaking. But Great Britain to-day is under a much heavier financial burden than we are. Her debt is very much greater, very much greater per capita than ours. Her people are bearing taxation vastly beyond anything that we are bearing at the present time. In view of this fact, are we to say to the Mother Country: "While you have a heavier debt than we have, while the war has cost you more than it has cost us, we are still going to leave on your shoulders the whole burden of keeping open these lines of communication and protecting the shores and the coasts of Canada as well?" Are we going to say that we will not even defend and protect our own coasts and shores under these conditions? Frankly, I think that is a humiliating position which I, as a self-respecting Canadian, am not prepared to assume. With the country we possess and the resources at our disposal-I would be ashamed of being a Canadian if we were to continue to impose upon the Mother Country the duty of protecting and defending our coasts and commerce, and I believe it is our duty to show our self-respect and self-reliance by doing something towards the defence of our own coasts and the protection of our own trade routes. Now, what is proposed here? The Prime Minister has pointed out that the action we are taking is in pursuance of the Naval Act of 1910 adopted by this House ten years ago.
That Adt authorized the maintenance of a Canadian naval force and provided for the manner in which the work of the force should be carried on. We have had in Canada a very limited Canadian naval force. We have had the vessels which have been referred to. It is quite beside the question to discuss how good, or how bad, how efficient or how inefficient they have been in the past. We have had them. They have constituted some measure of protection for our coasts, some measure of naval effort on the part of Canada. All the Minister of Naval Affairs is proposing is to accept, without a dollar of additional cost to Canada, the vessels which the Mother country has offered to donate to take the place of vessels which have already become obsolete.


Michael Clark: Does not the
very acceptance of those vessels as a gift

bring in the element of humiliation which the hon. gentleman suggested I was 'advocating a minute before?


Mr.   CROWELL@: No, it does not in the least. The Mother country has more of these vessels than she needs. .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Michael Clark: Precisely.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Absolutely, she has more than she needs.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Why do you need them then?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Because, as self-respecting Canadians, we should be ready to defend our own coasts as any self-respecting man should be ready to defend his own home.


Samuel William Jacobs: Who protected our
eastern and western coasts during the recent war? As I understand, the eastern coast was protected by the American navy, and the western coast by the Japanese navy.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I explained the other evening that in so far as the Atlantic coast was concerned our good friends and allies the Americans were sending thousands upon thousands of troops via Montreal, Halifax and Sydney; they did send their vessels up there and they did provide certain air craft for the protection of their own troops and at the same time afforded a certain amount of protection to us.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If it was a fact that our coasts were defended by the Americans on the east and the Japanese on the west that would be an added reason why we should not leave ourselves in such a position any longer; we should have a naval force, not for aggression but for the protection of our coasts and our trade routes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that not
a strong reason for the Government having a naval policy?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend knows, as the Minister of Naval Affairs has already announced', that there will fee an Imperial Conference next year. At that Imperial Conference two questions must be fully considered. First, the extent to which Canada should undertake naval effort on her own account. Secondly, because of its relation to the whole problem of naval defence throughout the Empire, how can we best

co-operate with the other portions of the Empire in naval defence? We must endorse the view presented toy the hon. member for Red Deer that the [question of naval defence of the British Empire should .be a matter of co-operation between the different nations that compose the Empire. Therefore it is a proper thing to meet in conference to consider and discuss that matter, and also to discuss the methods by which that co-operation can be most effectively carried out. These are the salient features of the question which mu3t be considered and settled. But my hon. friend knows, as the Prime Minister indicated, ithat whjat is now proposed is but carrying on the policy which was embodied in the Naval Act of 1910. It is a substitution of new and up-to-date vessels for those which have become obsolete, and it is the basis or the nucleus of the Canadian navy, a navy designed for the defence of our own coasts and the protection of our own trade land commerce. Surely my hon. friend does not wish for any more. The 'Government's naval policy, in -so far as ,a policy is required at this time, is embodied in 'this Estimate.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Laurier policy.


Newton Wesley Rowell: One aspect of the Government's naval policy is the substitution of new boats for boats that have become obsolete for the purposes so clearly and cogently pointed out by the Minister of Naval Affairs. The second .aspect is to consult with Great Britain and the sister Dominions at the Imperial Conference as to the extent to which Canada and the other Dominions should develop naval forces in oo-operation with the Mother Country. I must say frankly that I cannot understand the opposition to this modest and moderate proposition. It seems to me to he the very least that Canada could do. Would any hon. friend suggest that, having- taken over the defence of Halifax and Bsquimalt years ago and relieved Great Britain from the responsibility of maintaining them, Canada should go hack on that proposition? One hon. member on the other side suggested it, but I would be greatly surprised if the leader of 'the Opposition would endorse that policy.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I would not.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The leader of the Opposition says he would not endorse it. Then, we have to maintain our coast defences and

our naval stations at Halifax and Esquimalt. My hon. friend (would not suggest that we close the naval college for the training of out naval cadets, for what is the use of having naval bases at Halifax and Esquimau, and a naval college unless we have the nucleus of a navy, a nucleus which may be some service as a matter of defence and which may provide the ships upon *which our young men Kvill receive Ithe training necessary to fit them for naval service? I entirely agree with the view presented by the Prime Minister that the British navy has not been an instrument of aggression. The1 existence of the British navy has been one of the best guarantiees' for the preservation of the world's .peace which the World has had, (and under existing conditions no one who understands the .world's situation or the troubles that still exist will say that Great Britain .could wipe out that navy at the present time and that the British Empire could ibe safe. Nor can anybody fairly suggest that the present condition should Continue under which the Mother Country hears the whole burden of the naval defence of the Empire including Canada and that Canada should not take some share of it small though it be. I do not hesitate to ,say that T believe Canada should take, a larger share in the future than this proposal involves.


An hon. MEMBER:: You want to bankrupt this, country?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Mr. RINFRET:: I feel that most of the argument that could be advanced on both sides of this question has already been presented; to the committee. Yet I do not think that we should apologize for prolonging the debate; because I believe that before we allow the minister to get the money he is asking for this service we should exhaust every means in our power to oppose it. I am keenly desirous of voicing my protest against these naval estimates and the haphazard way in which they were introduced1 into this House by the minister on the 14th of June. I will admit that before the session started it was intimated that the Government might- propound a naval policy during the session but on the-25th of March last-as has already been: pointed out-the minister very clearly declared! that it had been decided to defer any action during this session in regard (to the adoption of a policy for Canada. But now he has changed his mind and it is hard to reconcile his present attitude with the declaration he made on the occasion referred to. Not only was that statement clear and definite but ilt was borne out ,by the item for naval purposes in the main estimates which only amounted to 3300,000. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mo-wat) admitted that when he read that statement he and his good militarist friends received a shock. Really it almost seemed that a blush of shame and resentment suffused the virgin cheek of my hon. friend. Here is what the hon. member said during the debate on this question on June 14th:
I do not agree that the announcement made in March with regard to proposed changes effecting a reduction of our naval services was
received with satisfaction by the country..
	 The statement that we were not to
take our part as a nation; that we were not to support other nations of like mind to ourselves, was received not only with concern but with feelings of shame by the people.
There seems to be great confusion, and uncertainty in the mind of the minister as to what he is going to do. On the 25th of March last he declared) that there would be no Naval policy and the estimates for the-Naval Services only called for $300,000. On-the 14th of June-


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If my hon. friend
will do me the honour to read what I stated!

on March 25th he will notice that I said we were going to carry on along very nearly pre-war lines, and that no permanent naval policy would be adopted until after the conference in 1920-1921. If my hon. friend is confused' on this issue let me set his mind at rest at once: I have never been confused' on the issue^-not on the occasion to which he refers, nor now.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My hon. friend may not have been confused but my point is that he made a statement that confused the House and the country at large. That statement was supported by his asking at first for the sum of only $300,000. It is also proved by the discussion which took place between the minister and the member for Parkdale from which it is very plain that the. latter at the time obtained the same understanding from the minister that we all did, then on the 14th of June the minister comes along once more and announces that the Government has accepted five ships that will call for an expenditure of $2,500,000. On the 26th of June we have another statement under which it is contemplated to have only three ships involving an expenditure of $2,000,000. I think there is to be found ample proof of my contention.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Five ships.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I understood the government had di-opped the idea of the submarines.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, No.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Any way the Government had reduced its Estimates for this purpose to $2,000,000. I think that is very plain. I think we have ample proof, from the facts I have cited, that the Government itself does not know where it stands on the question. The Admiralty does not know what ships to send and Canada does not know what ships she will get. The Admiralty does not know what to do with the ships, and Canada does not know what she will do when she gets the .ships. I think the whole matter is in a state of topsy-turvy confusion unworthy of the consideration of this committee.
It is very refreshing to hear hon. gentlemen opposite,-even the Prime Minister himself-placing reliance on the Laurier policy to carry this expenditure through. The Prime Minister, only a few minutes ago, pointed out to my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) that he approved of a naval policy in 1910. Surely he did; we all approved of the naval policy at that time. Put is it not also a fact that thei

right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) led a campaign against that naval policy? And when he was in power in 1913, what policy did he adopt but the proposed payment of $35,000,000, as a direct contribution to the Admiralty? The other day when the Minister of Marine was expressing his gratitude for this splendid gift from the Admiralty-as he said-hon. gentlemen opposite applauded his statement. What a change of view on their part, Mr. Chairman. Before the war some of these gentlemen contended that the British navy needed reinforcements and it wias very urgent to add to its warships. Now it appears, on the contrary, that the British navy has a surplus of warships and that she is well able to dispose of a few to the colonies. Why is that? Because the war has demonstrated that the supremacy of the British navy was not challenged. It was of such a character that the German ships did not even offer to fight; and the Admiralty now, as I say, has an over supply of ships. But the war is over now, Mr. Chairman; the German navy has been destroyed and the German peril has disappeared. The countries of Europe are putting to one side all thoughts of .militarism. They are now applying themselves to the work of reconstruction, to peace work. And yet, Mr. Chairman, here is the situation: we stood for a navy in 1910, in the days of the German peril when the navy was most needed, and when we had plenty of money in the public treasury. Hon. gentlemen opposite make that (stand when it has become useless and when we have no money left in the treasury to pay for it. The minister, of course, says it is only a small amount of $2,000,000. I ask him, is it not a fact that we have a tremendous deficit in our finances? Is it not a fact that to meet that deficit we have to tax and over-tax the people?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: May I ask my hon. friend what he would do?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I am coming to that.


Mr. DUFF:: Give him a chance.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: First of all, I will tell
my hon. friend frankly that I will vote for the amendment to strike out this amount from the Estimates. The minister says that it is only a small amount; it is only $2,000,000. Let me remind him that if he obtains this money from Parliament the people will be taxed to an even greater extent, and that they will have to dig a little deeper into their pockets which are, in all truth, flat enough at the present time. If my hon.

friend would only consult the people, if he would only go to his constituents in the St. Lawrence Division of Montreal, he would find that in every household the Budget of the Minister of Finance has created gloom and distrust and that the people are out of patience with the Government. They can barely purchase a few of the mere necessities of life without paying extra dollars in the way of taxes, let alone contributing $2,000,000 for this purpose. I claim that $2,000,000 at the present -time is really a very large sum when it is for such a useless expenditure as is contemplated. I wish it to be very clearly understood that we on this side are not going back on the policy that was adopted by the Laurier Government in 1910 when conditions were so different. We are opposed to the present expenditure because we say that at this juncture it is premature and inopportune, because it will only add a useless burden to the taxes that are already being paid by the Canadian people and because this war Parliament has outlived its mandate and has no authority whatever to fasten such an expenditure upon the country.


Arthur Meighen: I have only a few words to add to the discussion. For several nights we have heard this vote objected to on the ground that there is no immediate menace at the present time and that consequently no obligation devolves on Canada to take any share, or assume any burden in the matter of Imperial naval defence. It has- been urged upon the other side repeatedly, night after night, that they were prepared to take a share of the burden back in 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912 because at that time there was a German menace on the horizon that compelled the nations of the world to arm against it, and that because of that German menace they, on the other .side, were ready that Canada should bear some share of naval defence. Well, it is a little difficult of credibility, to one who sat through the debates of those years, to thinK that at this time hon. gentlemen would stand in their places and dare to assert that their policy of that day was dictated by any consideration of a German menace, or that they would venture now to pose as the authority on naval menaces.
Why, for years, during 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913, the same gentlemen who oppose this vote assured this Parliament over and over again that there was no German menace at all-that it was all the product of March hares and April fools-that it was all a figment of the imagination-that there was nothing in it whatsoever-that
there was no emergency-that there was no call for special action-and that the only consideration that dictated their policy at that time was regard for the ordinary attributes Of nationhood to be assumed by Canada. They said, "We are a nation now. Under the aegis of Sir Wilfrid Laurier we have risen into the status of nationhood, and being a nation, and without regard to any menace from Germany or anywhere else, it becomes us to take some part dn guarding the trade routes of this nation and the shores of this country.'' Now, there was never any dispute that that obligation di!d rest upon us as a nation, aside altogether from considerations of Germany's naval ambitions. But the ground was taken on this side that although that was true, and although those principles could be argued as related to the question of permanent policy, there was -a German menace so far as the human eye could detect it, and that therefore we should do something immediate and effective to assist in meeting that menace. That is why we-on this side of the House contended that while it was our duty to take our part as a nation in co-operation with the Empire in a permanent scheme of naval defence, that could well wait until we provided for what was immediately before us, until we did something to assume the immediate obligation of this country in relation to the menace that overhung the European horizon. And although no one undertook .to be a prophet in the matter, we did contend that there were indications that clearly pointed to the necessity for immediate action. We were refuted, scoffed at, and scorned night after night and week after week iand the word "emergency" became a byword with hon. gentlemen opposite, .and they sat in -their places and cheered to the echo the assertion that there was no "emergency" at all because the world could depend for its peace on that great bulwark, the Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Yet tonight they stand up and say, "Why, the only reason we were led to vote money in 1910 was 'because of the German menace." Now it is argued that the German menace has passed away. Nobody contends that it has not. What there may be in the future no one can tell. But the obligation of the British Empire to protect its sea routes has not passed away. The obligation of Canada as an -integral portion of the Empire to bear its decent share as a country has not passed iaway. Not one argument that supported the policy of 1909 and 1910 has passed away or been diminished an iota.

Has Britain decided that she can now rest on her oars because the German menace has disappeared? Has the League of Nations decided that there need be no backing of force behind the obligations that it incurs? Great Britain that in 1909 and 1910 was spending possibly $200,000,000 to $300,000,000 a year on her navy is spending to-day $482,000,000. Is she spending it because she loves to spend it, because she has the ships and therefore must spend it? Why, she can scuttle the ships. She has scuttled some-in fact, she scraps every ship she can and keeps only those that she believes to be essential for the purpose of the naval protection of this Empire, including this Dominion. It is said that she has more ships than she needs. So she has-and she has more obligations than she needs, too. If Britain maintains those ships to the extent of $482,000,000, is it a tremendous burden on us to assume an obligation of $2,000,000? Is that more than our share at the present time? We know it is far less. We know that such a portion as is now proposed will necessarily form a component part of any fair share of naval obligation that we later incur? We know that it will. 'Then why do we defer taking this portion on ourselves? How can we in honour defer longer our action in the matter? $2,000,000 as against $482,000,000!
"Why," it is said, "we have not the money that we had in 1909 and 1910 when we incurred that obligation under the Laurier Government." That obligation, as an obligation, nobody objected to; we only objected on the ground that it did not meet the immediate situation. But that obligation was n-ot a $2,000,000 obligation, it was a $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 obligation. And the obligation in 1913 when they proposed to have a naval unit on the Pacific and another on the Atlantic was not a $2,000,000 obligation; that was a $70,000,000 obligation. But even to that extent no objection was taken. The objection was that for us to undertake to construct in this country a navy of the dimensions then proposed -would never meet the emergency that was then menacing the world. That is why the alternative proposed by the Government of that day was proposed-an alternative that unfortunately was later defeated.
So that the argument advanced by the bon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), that it was all right in 1909 and 1910 when we were flush of money, and all wrong to-day, falls to the ground. How could it be all right for us in 1910 to assume an obligation of some $30,000,000 or

$40,000,000 which the Government of that day proposed, as against the United Kingdom obligation of possibly $250,000,000; and all wrong for us to-day to assume an obligation of $2,000,000, as opposed to the United Kingdom obligation of $482,000,000? Is no country in this Empire, is no nation in the world, to take a naval obligation upon itself until some war is immediately in sight? Is that the policy of the nations of the world to-day? Is that the policy of the League of Nations? Is not the British fleet the main bulwark of the League of Nations at this hour? And if it is, is $2,000,000 out of $482,000,000 too big a share for Canada? If that represents the spirit of Canada, then I apprehend that the member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) was possibly interpreting aright the spirit of this country when he said the only thing we could do, if the United States and! Great Britain went to war, "would be to lie down and be eaten up like a fatted calf in a tiger's den. But I do not think he did interpret aright the spirit of this country when he made that comparison. I am sure he did not interpret it aright when he said that $2,000,000 was too 'big a share for us to contribute when Great Britain pays $482,000,000.
Now, why the opposition to this vote? The leader of the Opposition says: I am in favour of a Canadian navy now. He was in favour of it, he said, in 1909 and 1910, 'because itheire was a 'German menace. Well! Hid .he not go down to t-he county of Waterloo and tell the people of that county that they should not vote for Sir Robert Borden; because he was ready to build ships to fight Germany.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only mistake in that statement was that the Prime Minister was not ready to build any ships and did! not build any.


Arthur Meighen: 
William Duff: Oh, no; that is not necessary.


Arthur Meighen: It is big enough now?


William Duff: Yes, of course it is.


Arthur Meighen: I see; the United States voted the money first; therefore we are out of it altogether.


William Duff: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I cannot help
standing in admiration; it really deserves more than a passing tribute-the extreme sense of self-respect and) national respect possessed by the member for' Lunenburg.


William Duff: The only one who has any loyalty, of course, isi the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen).


Arthur Meighen: I was not talking about the hon. gentleman's loyalty; I was talking about his sense of national self respect.


William Duff: Then you have all the
national respect; keep it.


Arthur Meighen: 
Michael Clark: I should like
to offer a friendly suggestion to the Minister in charge of the Estimates, and that is that he keep charge of it and keep his fellow-members of the Cabinet out. I cannot conceive for the life of me how a speech such as' that to which we have just listened is going to help any minister to get through his Estimates,-I should say a most provocative speech, in 2 a.m. answer to a speech which the Minister in charge of the Estimates will admit was at least an attempt at constructive ideas; a speech which offered the suggestion that the Government were shortsighted in not waiting eighteen months. I cannot understand how the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Meighen) can think that his remarks have been effective as against a constructive speech of that order.


Arthur Meighen: Better not to have all the provocation on one side.'


Michael Clark: My hon. friend is sitting; he had better have a fair amount of the modesty of youth and sit and be silent.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
does not do it,.


Michael Clark: I appeal to
the protection of the Chair. I was glad to have my hon. friend's admission tonight that the British navy, forsooth, is the bulwark of the League of Nations. Why,


Arthur Meighen: I have never adopted
the practice of following too closely the advice of the hon. member for Red Deer, and I have never had reason to regret my course in that regard.
Mr. iCEARK (Red Deer):	I can tell you
occasions when you have.


Arthur Meighen: As the interruption has come, I may remind the hon. member of the exceedingly kind welcome which he always gives to interruptions himself. I might say that in the remarks I made I did not have any special reference or any reference at all ito my hon. friend, nor did I have his speech in mind for a single moment. I do not know how he got the idea that I was particularly attacking him. I know he made a speech. I was in the Chamber part of the time but my attention was otherwise engaged by hon. members, and I never heard a (single sentence of his speech. I was out most of the time, and consequently not -a sentence or a word of his speech was in my mind when I was on my feet-, so he was visioning a nightmare when he conceived I was getting up particularly to provoke him. He seems also to feel that it is the prerogative of the Opposition to have a monopoly of what he describes .as provocative speeches in this House. This debate has been continued
now, not for one night or two, but for at least three. I have never spoken on the subject before. Indeed, I think the same subject was debated in this House in 1913 for three weeks or at all events two consecutively, and although the hon. gentleman himself made .many speeches on that occasion, and many provocative ones, I had yet until to-night to make my first speech on naval defence in the House of Commons.
I .do not know jusit how to follow what he *describes as the line of argument he pursued. I did not detect- any lines of argument at all. He seemed to think I had boasted that we on this side of the House, and myself in particular, had foreseen the German wax, that we knew it was coming, and that we acted accordingly. I made no such statement. Indeed I distinctly denied any .such boast on our part. I distinctly said that no one could foresee it. I stated that there did appear to us indications (which convinced us that the time had come to prepare immediate and effective efforts for what might easily come to pass in that regard. No one can foresee such things. But my hon. friend and many around him are in the position of having attempted to say definitely that there was no such menace, and that the policy of this Government should be governed without any regard to its possibility whatsoever. That is what I cointended and nothing .more. Now he says: "What I said on that occasion was not that $35,000,000 would be any use, for I did not think it would be any good at all; I said that if war came, we should come to the help of the British Empire with all the resources at our command." Who did not- say that? That is embodied in every resolution passed. We all knew that, but there were those of us who thought that inasmuch as there was danger, though no one could definitely foresee what might come and foretell it, it was the part of wisdom to have some resources at our command.
Consequently we thought that a contribution, at all events something in the way of assistance, towards naval defence that would meet the emergency, were it upon us, would be the part of wisdom. He was no better than any one else in the assertion that the right thing to do, if the emergency did come, was to bring the whole resources of Canada into the scale. Where he differed from others was in .saying that we did not need to provide resources of such a character and within such a limited time as would be of real use in that event. He says: "I knew thirty-five millions in these

three dreadnoughts would be no good." I know he said that at that time; but I know the British Admiralty said precisely the opposite, and I know the British Admiralty have not so far changed their view. With all due respect to the hon. member for Red Deer and his superior authority in all tariff and economic matters, and most other matters, I would respectfully beg to defer to the opinion of the British Admiralty on naval questions, even above his.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I must necessarily be brief at this late hour, and I am extremely sorry that my good friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) did not hear the previous debates that took place in this House on two previous occasions. I feel satisfied that if he had heard those debates or had had the time to read them he would not have given expression to-night to the arguments which hon. members have listened to. I have a great admiration for the ability of my hon. friend, but I must say that I do not always find him practical. Now, I do not desire to be theoretical on this or any other question. I have been trained as a practical business man, and I believe in dealing with facts and conditions as I find them. When introducing this Estimate in the House I avoided everything that savoured of a party character. I took conditions as they confront the country. I explained the meaning of the Naval Act which is so familiar to all hon. members. It meant that whether we liked it or not we had to maintain the naval college and the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt. As Minister of Naval Affairs, the man responsible to the people for the wise expenditure of public moneys in connection with naval matters, I did not then criticise, and I do not criticise now the purchase of the Niobe or the Rainbow; but I did say the other night that one of these ships, the Niobe, was twenty-five years of age, while the Rainbow was thirty years old. I said that they had performed good service in the past, but I pointed out that to-day the Niobe is tied up at the dock at Halifax and for the last two or three years has been stripped of all her guns on instructions from the Admiralty. During the war these guns were placed on the merchant marine ships, and I explained to the House that the Niobe and the Rainbow were useless and obsolete as training ships.
I explained to members of the committee that it cost $450,000 a year to keep the Niobe tied up at the dock at Halifax, and that it would take $225,000 to keep the Rainbow tied up at Esquimalt. I further

stated that the naval service of Canada needed reorganization, and needed it badly. The Government has thoroughly reorganized the service from headquarters down, but not one word of commendation has fallen from the lips of hon. gentlemen opposite for what the Government has done in this respect. The Naval Service of Canada has not only been put on a business footing, but it has been rendered exceedingly efficient from a naval standpoint. Notwithstanding this, however, not one word of commendation comes from the opiposite side in regard to the economies which the Government have put into effect by this reorganization. If I had come into this House and had said that we were prepared to go along with the inefficient service that we had, with 782 more men than we need, and that I was willing to keep the Niobe and the Rainbow 'tied up, and asked the House to vote the same amount (I am asking to-night there would have been no criticism from hon. members opposite.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: But when we come here with a reorganized service, having got rid of 782 civilians and naval ratings whom we did not need, and when I explain that to ipnt the Niobe into commission as this cruiser will foe it would cost $500,000; that it would cost over a million dollars to maintain the Niobe after putting her into commission, and) $150,000 to put the Rainbow into commission, and over $600,000 to maintain her when so equipped, I appeal to the hon. member for Red Deer to-night to turn his well-developed talents into a practical channel and, instead of sweepingly asserting that we ought to cut off the vote, to offer some constructive criticism for once and tell hon. members what he would suggest in lieu of my proposals. Not a word comes from the hon. member for Red Deer as to what he would do. He talked most eloquently, as he always does, about- the League of Nations, but he offers not one practical suggestion as to what we should do in this connection. If he had said: I am opposed to maintaining the Niobe and the Rainbow; I am opposed1, as the hon. member for Lu-nenberg (Mr. Duff) says, to keeping up the dockyards of Halifax and Esquimalt, and I want to close up the naval college; I don't want one dollar of the country's money spent until after the conference of 1921-if he had so expressed himself, then I say we would have had a clear-cut statement from the hon. member. But no; he deals in generalities; he does everything but. come down

to the practical business .proposition that faces' the minister and hon. members of this House. During the course of this debate I have tried over and over again to impress upon hon. members the full significance of the situation and have solicited suggestions as to what they would do. Not a ^ word! The leader of the Opposition says: "I am not opposed to Canada carrying out the naval obligations that were placed on the Statute Books by my late revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Oh no! I am in favour of that; but II do not want any ships at all. Maintain your Halifax dockyard; maintain your E&quimalt dockyard; maintain your naval college; but- no ships lat all. I don t want any ship at all." Then he has the fanciful idea 'that we could maintain these two dockyards and ithe naval college on the paltry sum of $300,000. To do what the leader of the Opposition says would take at least $600,000. What is the Government's proposition? We say we do not want to put the country to one dollar's additional expense but we do want to have a small naval service if we can get it on an efficient basis. We are not criticising the old Niobe and Rainbow. They have served their day and generation. We are offering both of these ships for sale. We have accepted from the Mother Country $7,000,000 worth of ships, an absolutely modern cruiser, two modern torpedo boat destroyers and two modern submarines. The hon. member for Red Deer says they will be obsolete in five years. Admiral Viscount Lord Jelliooe says they will not be obsolete in five years. He says they will not be obsolete before twelve or fifteen years, and the Government and the Minister of Naval IService have accepted the judgment of such a naval authority as Viscount Jellicoe on that point.
The hon. member for Red Deer says that he would like a direct answer from me as to what these ships can do in the way of guarding trade routes. I do not pretend to say .that one modern oruiiser, two torpedo boat destroyers and two submarines constitute very much of a naval defence for Canada. I think it is altogether inadequate, and I would express* the hope, as I did the other nij.ht, that after the Imperial Conference has been held, whoever the Minister of Naval Service at that time may be, he will come before this House with a very much larger vote than I am asking for at the present time. My own opinion is that Canada should Teally have a navy in keeping with her dignity as a self-governing nation. The cruiser and the other ships
that we are getting are modern and they are officered by Canadians with the exception of four British officers. We will put as many Canadians cm these ships as have the necessary knowledge and efficiency. They will give our young men and able bodied seamen the necessary training. Officers and men of the navy cannot get their training by being tied up at the docks at Halifax and Esquimalt. Therefore these ships will be at sea most of the time giving practical training to the officers and men. These ships will do this also. I for one hope we will not have any unrest in our o wn country now or at any other period, but if we ever do have any unrest on the Pacific or the Atlantic coast .at least .Canada has these modern ships ready to render us the defence that they may be able to render. Furthermore they cam protect our trade routes in so far as the number of ships will be available for that purpose. But I do not want hon. members' to imagine that we think that with this small number of ships we can boast of having a strong Canadian navy that can protect our trade routes adequately. Canada will have to depend in the future on the British navy and the Mother Country until such time as this country votes a very much larger sum than we are now voting.


Mr. CLARK (Red Dear):: Can the minister tell us the age of these vessels?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The destroyers were built in 1916 >amd the submarines were built in the same year. Captain Hose, the Director of Naval Service, is at present in London in consultation with the Admiralty officers and especially with the First Lord Of the Admiralty, Admiral Beatty. I have been informed by him that the cruiser is of the Bristol class but T have not been informed of her armament or of her name; therefore I am unable to tell just what the age of this vessel is.


Michael Clark: Cl would never dream of putting my authority against that of Lord Jellicoe in the matter otf the age of a vessel, but just before our naval debate several years ago .a number of 'Canadian journalists visited Great Britain, and amongst other wonderful things they saw 144 ships Of the line at Portsmouth. They were informed that the average life of these vessels was twelve years. So that I did not exaggerate sot much when I said five years. I congratulate the minister that these vessels will last a little longer than I said hut assuming they have been built for four

years and I said five years, that makes nine; therefore 1 was mot so far out. I was only three years out.
Mr. EMMANUEL D'ANJOU (Rimouski): (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the question at present before the House has been discussed from every viewpoint, and I do not pretend to bring new arguments against this vote that the Hon. Minister of Marine asks us to pass, or against this nucleus of a navy of which the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) has just spoken; but* in a few words, I wish to explain my position before this House and the country, and to give the reasons why 1 oppose this expenditure, In 1911, when the elections were on, especially in the province of Quebec, the contest centred on the question of a navy. As you know, the people of that province voted by a large majority against the project of a navy. Those adverse to it in the province of Quebec denounced it as an Imperial navy, and in Ontario those who fought it as a "tin pot navy" are the same who to-night ask us to vote more than two millions for the nucleus of a navy. In passing this vote [DOT]we would commit ourselves to the principle of a navy for the future.
The county that I have the honour to represent voted strongly against such a scheme of naval defence in 1911. The present Government does not hold a mandate from the people to ask the members to vote this Naval Estimate. Doubtless one might have been for or against a navy in 1911, but conditions then were not the same as to-day. At that time we were flourishing financially, and we were on the eve of a conflict such as the world had never seen. For these reasons the regretted leader of the Liberal party was justified in asking Parliament to vote the [DOT] money necessary for the creation of a Canadian navy, since' a real menace overhung the horizon. But now the Great War is over, the German navy is at the bottom of the sea, the League of Nations has been established, and this last war has been fought, not only to destroy militarism, but to prevent future wars; therefore the Government is not justified in saddling the country with this burden of more than two millions or in forcing the representatives of the people to approve of this vote.
For my part, I strongly oppose this expenditure and I declare that I shall not vote a single cent for a navy.

As all the Liberals of that time, in 1911, ^on all the hustings, at all political meetings, I did not hesitate to defend the project of the 'Canadian navy advocated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But now, when there is no menace on the horizon, wben the country is over head and ears in debt, and because the sentiment of the p o le in the province of Quebec and all ov r the country, is opposed, not only to the nucleus of a navy, but to mili arism in any form or shape, I do not hesitate to declare myself absolutely opposed to this expenditure. Besides, has no* the Prime Minister, the chief of the present Union Government, declared upon tha floor of this Houise, that,, when his Government should judge it wise to establish a navy, he would consult the people, either by a referendum or by a general election? So, to keep their promise to the electors, the Government should, if they now wish to settle a navy upon the country and accept the gift England offers, dissolve Parliament immediately and ask the people whether they desire the establishment of a navy. If the people return to power those who govern us to-day, which I very much doubt, they will then have the right to put through their scheme, for they will have submitted the issue to the peopjle and will have received an affirmative answer.
I have not the intention to speak at greater length, but I believe that it is ill-advised of the Government to accept gifts from England. There is an old proverh which says: "Timeo Danaos et dona fer-entes I fear the Greeks even bringing gifts. Really, gifts, ,are to be feared. In 1913, the Prime Minister asked Canada to make a gift to England of three dreadnoughts, because she was in need of them, he said; to-day, England, having no further need of ships, wishes to give us some, to be the nucleus of a navy, thus inducing the country to accept the priii-i ciple of a navy; and at next session perhaps it will not be two millions, or five, or ten millions, but it will be about fifteen million dollars which we will be asked to vote for the building of ships-ships to make war upon whom?
With all my might I oppose this Naval Estimate and it will be with infinite pleasure that I shall vote in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. leader; of the Opposition, because I consider that.
I shall be doing my duty not only to my electors but to the whole country.


William Duff: Before the question is put I would like to put a few interrogations to the minister. I am sorry that the debate has occupied so long, but we on this side are not to blame. If the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell), and especially the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) had stayed out o.f this debate we would have been at home in our beds long ago. The minister remarked a few minutes since that it would take $450,000 to repair the Niobe, aind $225,000 ito repair the Rainbow, and put both vessels in shape. Will the minister be good enough to explain! how the repairs would cost that much money and what these repairs are?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) must take my word as a minister on the total expenditure that is necessary to put these vessels into commission. If he thinks that I can tell him just what is wrong with the boilers, with the engines, and the piping, and the bottom of the boat, and the electrical equipment, I cannot; I would need to get a very detailed report, but I have that report in my office. ,1 have been informedl by the technical officers that the cost will be $500,000 to get the Niobe ready to go to sea and $225,000 for the Rainbow. If the hon. member wishes me to give the details item iby item I shall have to get detailed reports from the technical officers before doing so.


William Duff: I am willing to take the minister's word as to the cost, I would not for a moment doubt it. But does he realize that $450,000 is a very large amount? It is almost as large as the sum which he would have to pay for the new cruiser,- if he were not getting it as a gift.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, $4,000,000 is the cost of the cruiser.


William Duff: Still the amount is very
large. It seems to me that it is almost impossible to spend so much money in the repair of the Niobe. There is not very much wrong with her. Only the other day I had a conversation with a man who has been on the Niobe for five years. He said she was in very good shape outside of some slight repairs needed to her boilers and engines. It seems to me that the estimate given by the minister is a very large amount. Still, I am willing to take the minister's word that such an amount is required. The minister did not seem quite pleased because we on this side did not
commend him for the reorganization of the Canadian Navy. The minister has not informed us what reorganization he has carried out. We have not had much information as to what he has or has not done in the work of reorganizing the navy except in the matter of discharging certain officials and promoting others. Before any commendations or bouquets are due to the minister he should certainly give us a detailed statement of what he has done and what he intends to do.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not looking for any bouquets.


William Duff: Well then, commendation.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Well, commendation is the isame thing. I have a consciousness that I have done the ri^ht thing in the public interest. I did give all the detailed information that hon. member is now asking for in 'a Speech 'that I made a few days ago. I gave a statement then of the number of officers, civilians, and other particulars.


William Duff: I have 'another question to ask the minister. He says that it will take half .a million dollars to get the Niobe into commission. How does he figure that out?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Because the Niobe is a very much larger vessel than is the cruiser which we have been promised. The personnel on the Niobe would be two hundred men more than the coimplement on the cruiser, and the larger and the more obsolete a ship gets the more costly she is to maintain.


Mr. DEMERS:: What would 'be the number of men on each of the ships?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On the cruiser, 377 officers and other ratings; 79 on board each of the destroyers, and 21 on (board of each of the submarines.


Marie Joseph Demers: What is the total number?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The total is 608.


William Duff: The number of men the minister has just given us is merely the crew of the different boats?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The officers and crew.


William Duff: I understand the cruiser will not be able to give any number of boys a naval training. She can only aooommodate 367 men, so ishe cannot take a number of young naval ratings to sea to be trained.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have just been informed by Commander Stevens that one-

third of the persons on 'board the cruiser will undergo training.


William Duff: Is it not a fact that the Niobe can accommodate some 1,200 men for training purposes?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the Niobe were in *commission and at sea she fwould toe able to accommodate 600 men.


William Duff: Will the minister tell the committee how many men ishe had on board during the War?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Twice that many.


William Duff: 'That is What I thought.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If the hon. member would allow me. The .situation was, the Niobe tied up .at the wharf as a depot shop, or in other words ias ia barracks as compared with the Niobe ready to go to sea. If the Niobe were ready to go to .sea she would carry 600 men, but. .as ia floating barracks, which she has 'been for the last two or three years, she has 'been .able to accommodate 1,200 toy crowding them.	1


William Duff: Is it not possible for her to take 600 naval ratings on hoard for training purposes- in addition to her crew?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No, I am informed that it (would not toe a fact.


William Duff: It is strange, but I was
talking, only three days ago, with .a very reliable man 'who wias an officer on the Niobe for the last five years, >and he informed me that it was no trouble for her to take 600 men more, in addition to her crew, for training purposes. If that is iso, .she would he a vastly better boat to that which the minister is. going to accept from the Old Country.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend has been long enough in business, land in public life to realize that he must not attach too imu-ch importance to disgruntled and inefficient naval officers and ratings that have 'been demobilized. They, of course, have made most extravagant statements to him and have tried to embarrass the Government and myself. We have let out, 'as I siay, 782 men, and naturally they are not very friendly towards me or towards the department.


Marie Joseph Demers: Is it the intention of the Government to put on those ships the same men as were on the Niobe and the Rainbow?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We will put on those ships only the men who have the necessary knowledge and efficiency.


Marie Joseph Demers: Canadians? ,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If Canadians barve it, they will go on the .ships; if they have it not, they will not go on.


William Duff: There was .some difference of opinion as to whether the $300,000 was sufficient to keep up the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, and the nav.al college, one minister, I think, saying that it was not sufficient. Will the minister tell us how he intends to spend the $300,000, and whether or not it is sufficient for the purposes I have mentioned?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I explained it on a former occasion, and the Minister of the Interior did so to-night. We had not our final arrangements completed with the Admiralty, and having probably delayed the Main Estimates a little too long, we were anxious to get them down. I had to find out the type of ship, the number of men who would be on it, and the scale of pay. In pre-war times we paid the ordinary sailor $1.10 a day; now we have to pay him $1.65 a day. So that the $300,000 in my Main Estimates was only a sufficient sum .to pay the men in the service until such time as I -could figure out exactly the amount of money we wanted and get it voted. If we were not to have any ships at all, but were merely to maintain the dockyards 'at Esquimalt and Halifax and the naval college, I would not do it on a smaller vote than $600,000.


William Duff: That is satisfactory.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, and alt the risk of repeating certain arguments which have already been brought forward, I feel iit to be my duty to offer the committee certain remarks before the closing of the debate-


Herbert John Mackie: 

the other items which were brought down at the beginning of the session, no provision. has been made for the county I represent, for certain works which are most urgent and for necessary expenses I have always asked the 'Government- to provide for, not .for patronage and partisanship, *but only because these things are absolutely required. And if there is no money to meet the necessary expenditure in a county, to carry out the most needed improvements-, so that we may have a boat service in the county of Charlevoix-Montmorency, so that (the people of the county should not be prisoners and deprived, during several months of the year, of all communication with otheT parts of the country, then, I say that we must not tand cannot vote whatever amount the Government may propose for a war navy, and, as far as I am concerned, I shall vote against it, so long as the fair and just claims of the people of the -county of Charlevoix and Montmorency, which I represent, have not been attended to.


Herbert John Mackie: Mr. Chairman, I -crave your indulgence for addressing the House at this late hour and more particularly for -speaking in the French tongue which to me presents greater difficulties than the English language. However, having -given some time to the -study of the naval question, having read the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir Robert Borden and listened to the remarks of hon. -gentlemen in this House I have reached the conclusion that I am hound to oppose any useless and extraordinary expenditure which would commit this country to any elaborate programme, either naval or military; at the same time I believe, with Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that every nation ,should shoulder the burden of its orwn defence. iSueh a policy is sound, logical and practical. The other day I beard the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) say that he would rather rely on the neighbouring Republic, and put his trust in the Monroe doctrine. To my mind this would only belittle our own country and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations as national dignity demands.
Now, with your permission, I wish to quote a few passages from a speech delivered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, since it sets forth in a much more persuasive and eloquent way than I could do the principles which shall serve me for my future guidance.

Wfe are on solid ground. Let our children study the conference of 190!2 and the conference of 1907 ; they will find that we have always been consistent in every way: We have always held to the same policy which sought to develop our means of defence on land and on sea, but without foregoing our autonomy ; we were nott satisfied with merely contributing to the defence of the Empire: we wanted tq preserve our auto-ncmy in this as in all other matters.
"The principle of the Naval Act/' At this point, Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me if I read a few more extracts, since the question is a new one to me. It was debated in 1902, in 1907 and in 1910; but to me the question is entirely new. Therefore I ask you to hear with me for a few moments longer.
What basic principle, the " raison d'Etat," induced us to introduce and pass this Naval Service Act? That, gentlemen, is a question upon which superior minds may differ, a question which they may argue pro and con; andi I am here with you to discuss that question. The reason, gentlemen, which prompted us to introduce the Naval Service Act, and introduce it at the session of 1910, is found in the memorandum which I read to you a moment ago; in that memorandum we announced our intention of gradually organizing our naval defense in proportion as the population and the wealth of this country increased.
This Act came up for the first time in 19'02, again in 1907, and was finally proposed in 1910, eight years after it was mentioned for the first time. Eight years in the life of a people, gentlemen, is a mere minute, aye, a mere second; buit in this minute, in this second, Canada had advanced with giant strides.
Our condition is very different from what it was in 1902; we have grown in numbers, and we have grown in wealth.
There is another reason, more peremptory, more conclusive still and it is this: we have grown not only in population and in wealth, we have also grown in moral stamina.
If these words (were really 'true at the time, are they not more so to-dayP If in 1910 the Canadian people had grown in moral stamina, if the country felt at that time a moral obligation to adopt a policy of naval defence, is not that duty still more evident to-day? If, at that period when Canada had attained to a population of five million, the -country felt itself in duty bound to adopt a policy of naval service, should we not, now that our population has reached eight million, vote for that purpose at least a sum which is smaller than that proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier?
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Carried.


Herbert John Mackie: There is no hurry. You see, gentlemen, the English-speaking members do not understand French, so they find French

speeches tiresome. These gentlemen -would be better advised to leam French so as to know exactly what is going on in the House.
Now let us see what idea was at the bottom of this naval policy which we want to develop. In inaugurating- this policy of naval defence we were not moved by the fear of war; no, but there is this other consideration: we have a coast-line extending for a thousand miles along the Atlantic and a coast-line extending for a thousand miles along the Pacific; the Hudson Bay railway will be six hundred miles distant from the shores of the St. I^awrence; the terminus of the Transcontinental line is at present six hundred miles removed from all these establishments an the Pacific coast. We will have to patrol these distant waters for the protection of the business enterprises which will soon be launched there.
Now, I put this question to my hon. friends opposite:	is our thousand-mile
coast-line on the Atlantic still there; is out thousand-mile coast-line on the Pacific still there; is the Hudson bay railroad still six hundred miles distant from the shores of the St. Lawrence; is the terminus of the Transcontinental line still six hundred miles removed from the Pacific coast establishments which Sir Wilfrid Laurier alluded to? The first question brought up by my hon. friends since the beginning of [DOT]this debate was the cost of the navy; the second had to do with the League of Nations.
As regards the cost of a navy I am going to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier still further, since he gives us the example of moderation.
Let us come to another point: ithe cost of the Canadian navy. Ah. the tears I have seem shed over this question also. We have been told that we would be obliged to 'borrow, to burden the Canadian people with taxes in order to pay for the upkeep of the navy.
Gentlemen, there are navies and navies.
To-day England, Prance, Germany spend 50 per cent of their revenue for armament, both on land and sea. The upkeep of the navy I propose will not require 50 per cent of our revenue.
Just what will the navy cost this country, gentlemen?
The Great Powers spend 50 per cent. Are we going to take 25 per cent? No. Are we going to take 20 per cent-15 per cent? No ; not even 15 per cent, nor TO, nor 5. We are going to spend $3,0'O'O.OO0 a year. Last year our revenue was $100,000,000'; so' the navy will require exactly 3 per cent of our revenue.
Putting aside the expenditure incurred through the war, and taking into account the increase in our population from 1910 to the present day our revenue is greater now than it iwas then.
To come back to 'the argument of Sir Wilfrid Laurier-we are asking less than
he did; the present appropriations are only for some two million odd dollars, while he asked for three million in 1910.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier goes farther; he maintains that we should have a certain measure of naval defence because we are a nation. On this point he enters into a discussion with Mr. Bourassa and the Conservatives.	,
This is what he says.
Mr. Bourassa maintains that we are not a nation, because we are dependent upon England. It is true that politically we are dependent upon England; hut in a legislative sense we are independent; and Mr. Bourassa is perfectly aware of the fact. We, Canadians, gentlemen, have followed in nobody's footsteps ; we have ploughed our own furrow. Before us it was only through violent separation from the Mother Country that colonies attained to nationhood. We have blazed a new trail; we have become a nation without breaking the ties that bind us to the Motherland.
Now, if I give heed to tihe statement of the President of the Privy Council, we are to-day a nation more than we were in 1910, since we have been admitted to membership in the League of Nations, which has been invoked by all the hon. members of the Opposition. What amuses- me is that the members of the Opposition believe, as I do, that the League is merely a Utopian conception. Still they invoked the League to-night; and they were very emphatic about it; particularly the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark).
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the members from the province of Quebec should be with us in this proposal for a Canadian navy since we are only carrying out the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; and we are not asking for $.3,000,000 .but a much smaller amount. Lately the province of Quebec has taken hold of things in an admirable way; has given to the other provinces of the Dominion of Canada a magnificent example of sound judgment, of moderation and of generosity. It seems to me that the representatives of this splendid province should join hands with us so that we may continue the policy laid down by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, so that we may safeguard the autonomy of our country and not fall slaves to the American Republic; in this way we shall give to Canada the status so eloquently extolled by the hon. member for Red Deer, by the President of the Privy Council and by the two gentlemen who preceded me. I hope that when the time comes the hon. members from Quebec will vote for the continuation of SiT Wilfrid Laurier's policy.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption and Montcalm) (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, in following the arguments the hon. member wlho has just sat down (Mr. Mackie) and particularly in following the passages he quoted from the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, you no doubt noticed, as I did, the constant recurrence of the phrases "having regard to our population" and "having regard to our wealth." I think the hon. gentleman repeated at least ten times "having regard to our wealth." If, in 1910, having regard to our wealth, we could 'begin to lift our heads a little and consider that 'we were possessed of enough of this world's goods to start organizing a bit, I think that at the present time <we should reason in just the opposite way and say "having regard to our poverty;" and I feel sure that if our lamented leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, were here to-day, he would say: "having Tegard to our extreme poverty, having regard to the country's distress, having regard to the deplorable state of our finances, it is no time now to launch forth into extravagant expenditure in order to lend a hand to England which, likely, has too many battleships as it is."
In 1911 these gentlemen wanted to spend money to give ships to the Mother Country because she needed them. To-day they want to spend our money for the upkeep of warships which the Mother Country no longer needs. Mr. Chairman, in the face of the tremendous deficit with which we are confronted, I maintain that the present is no time for spending money in that way.
Several- times during the course of the session I have approached the Postmaster General to obtain a rural mail service in my district. Each time I received the very same answer:	"We have no money."
The Department of Agriculture refused to continue the maintenance of an experimental farm in my county which had been there for years, because the Minister of Finance claims that funds are lacking. Well, if we are short o<f funds when it comes to encouraging the principal industry of this country, namely agriculture, why should we vote over two million, dollars for a navy which next year, will cost five or six millions, doubling every year or so. I wish to lodge as strong a protest as I possibly can against this outlay of public money for a navy, just as I protest against the country incurring any expense for military purposes; let the Government give this money to the Minister of Agriculture who, though well disposed, is unable to 
do what be feels should ibe done, for the farmers of this country; I want to see some help given the farmers of this country and particularly the farmers of L'Assomption and Montcalm, which county I have the honour to represent in this House.


Mr.  A. M. DEOHENE@Montmagny) (Translation: Mr. Chairman, the committee is not yet ready for the question to be put; some hon members are waiting ito address the committee and although the houT is late I still wish to have the pleasure of expressing my opinion. I shall be as brief as possible. I take .advantage of this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Mackie) on the delightful French speech with which he favoured the committee this evening. We have only one regret, namely, that those hon. gentlemen on the right of the Speaker who are as fluent in French as the hon. member for Edmonton, do not employ that tongue more frequently. If those members on both sides of the House who possess both languages would only employ both when they address the House the rivalry which would result would be of distinct advantage to all. On this side we do our best; we often speak in English; moire often, perhaps, than we should, and we are delighted to extend our greetings in French to the hon. members on the other side who use that tongue to address the House. Unfortunately, this rivalry does not exist; there are some who hesitate. I want to tell them that they are wrong.
However, let us come back to the naval question, which has given rise to so much criticism and which is always turning up when not desired, as perhaps is the case to-night. Now that /the war is over, now that we have acceded to the Government's request and spent millions for demobilizing our army, and for re-establishing our soldiers in civil life, an hon. minister arises and tells the House: " Now that we have finished demobilizing the army, I intend to reorganize the navy; I intend to go about war preparations in another sphere." And the better to make us swallow the pill he tries to persuade us that he is merely carrying out the policy inaugurated by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. But in 1909 and 1910, these gentlemen found the navy proposed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier far too small; they nicknamed it the "tin navy," and claimed that it would be of no use to the Empire. Sir Wilfrid really submitted the naval question to the voters in 1911, and we know that hi3 defeat was in a great measure due precisely

to his naval policy. His successor had barely arrived when another naval policy was submitted to Parliament, a more ambitious policy this time, more in keeping with Canada's resources; however, it had the same fate as the Laurier policy: it was defeated here at Ottawa and laid aside.
Therefore we may come to the conclusion that, even in 1912, after the elections of 1911, the Canadian people were opposing the creation of a navy. Since that time we have had no opportunity for consulting them, and knowing what they now think, especially since the war is over, about the establishment of a navy. But we may still hold that at this very moment, in 1920, the people of Canada are utterly opposed to a navy and would spurn it were they consulted.
The proposal which is now before us does not even embody a policy in the past of the Government; it is rather aleatory, something which would allow us to wait and see what may be decided upon by a large conference which our ministers would attend, without telling us beforehand what policy, what proposals they were going to lay on behalf of Canada before the Prime Ministers of the several parts of the Empire and the Lords of the Admiralty. When once the conference is over and they have departed from England will they tell us upon their return what the thought at the back of their head was when they started? They would not be able ito do it, because we know very well what transpires in this country, we are aware that the people and even the majority of their representatives are still opposed to the creation of a navy and to any scheme of naval expenditure.
If we on this side of the House fought desperately and opposed with all our might this vote of $1,500,000 asked for by the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne) so as to launch his little ships, keep some afloat, while others would sink to the bottom, it was because we knew we had behind us not only the concensus of opinion of one province, but the opinion of every province and of every man throughout Canada; it was because we had the consciousness of representing the sane majority of the people, the thoughtful element, the group of tax-payers. We know that, every tax-payer is opposed to useless ani premature expenditures. I call them premature, because we are aware that England has more ships than shf can maintain-we have it from the ministers themselves. And turning out attention to the news that comes to us
from overseas, to the reports of several of our fellow-citizens in London, in Liverpool, or coming back from England, we notice that everywhere, in all large centres, England has scores of warships tied up to the docks, as our own Government have tied up the Niobe and the Rainbow, because the Admiralty cannot engage a sufficient number of sailors to man them. She has more ships than she needs; sire has the whole German fleet at her disposal, not knowing what to do with it. Facing that huge fleet, as the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) was saying this morning, the British Admiralty keeps whatever is required or needed for the security of the Empire, and yet they have small ships to give away to every friend of theirs, to every colony that is ready to launch into large naval expenditures.
The most enlightened portion of our people is aware of these conditions and under the circumstances we are justified in waging a relentless war against the hon. minister (Mr. Ballantyne), who sneers because he knows of his might, he knows he has that might which Six Robert Bowden himself praised to-night because he thinks, as the Czar and the Kaiser thought that might is still the main weapon which sometimes overcomes right and sometimes constitutes and imposes right. To-night we heaTd our little Canadian Kaiser saying that he also thought that might was really the upholder of right in the world, but it is the upholder of right in its own way.
On account of the stand taken by the Prime Minister himself, we are entitled to ask bow faT this proposal will go, which is advocated bv the hon. Minister of Marine, who is also the minister of the harbour of Montreal.


An hon. MEMBER:: It will go to the bottom.


Mr.  A. M. DEOHENE@Montmagny) (Translation: The hon. member says it will sink to the bottom. But there are also undersea boats; however, the League of Nations does not want them, of course, and the horn, minister (Mr. Rowell) invited us to vote $400,000 to pay our quota to the League of Nations, a league the object of which is altogether different from that of the hon. Minister of Marine, as it is aiming at the restoration and preservation of peace throughout t'he whole world, while he is aiming at the production of war weapons which are condemned toy every people on earth, against which we fought in every possible way, and which sent to

the bottom of the ocean, soldiers who should have fought under the rays of the sun, and on warships in the open; and we now see the hon. minister defending the submarines which he and his colleagues cursed the most While the war was on.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we shall be pleased on this side of the House to vote for the amendment moved by the hon. leader of the Opposition and we shall heartily oppose all these proposals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any correspondence between our Government and tile British 'Government with regard to these ships that are being obtained from the British Government?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not know of any correspondence beyond some cables.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there anything on record which the House might have that would indicate the way in which the gift was proffered and how it was accepted?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am willing to give my hon. friend every bit of information that I have. He will remember that Lord Jelliooe's report suggested various schemes-, the smallest one involving an expenditure of $10,000,000 by 1926 or 1927. Then he went on to enumerate the vessels the British Governement would give if that scheme were adopted. The Government could not see their way clear to undertake any larger expenditure than the present Estimates -call for. The only thing in the way of correspondence or cable that I know of-and I think I know about them all-was a caible sent to the Admiralty to inquire if they would let us have one cruiser and two destroyers, the submarines already being here. They replied that they would.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In other
words, we asked for the ships; they were not a present from the Mother Country.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Oh yes; I thought I had made the matter clear to my hon. friend.


Mr. BEL  AND@: There is all the difference in the world.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will go over it
again. Lord, Jellicoe's report suggested various schemes. The smallest scheme involved an expenditure of $10,000,000 spread over a period of years. He enumerated the ships that Great Britain was willing to offer us.	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
willing to offer the whole lot?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Certainly, far
more than we have taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the
minister explain the amount of $300,000 under the heading "Decrease" compared with Estimates of 1919-20, in respect to item 198?
Naval Service-To -provide for tha maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: First of all I think I had better explain why the vote for 1920 is so small,-$600,000. A very much larger amount than that was charged to demobilization, -so that the item of $600,000 is not ia fair comparison on a pre-war basis. In regard -to -the $300,000, I have nothing to add to what I have already stated tonight.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How much was charged to demobilization account, and how does the minister account for some of these payments for Naval Service being made out of demobilization account rather than out of appropriations made by Parliament for the purposes of the Naval Service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The explanation of that is that although the war was over we were on a war footing for quite a long time afterwards, and had very laTge demobilization charges.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I ought to say in conclusion that it -seems to me in the way in which these Estimates have been put before us the Government have treated Parliament with anything but the regard Parliament deserves. We are told in the first place, that this particular Naval Estimate is a purely fictitious item; that it does not correctly represent the Estimate of the previous year or of the present year. In other words the Estimates are absolutely meaningless. I think the minister deserves all the criticism that can he levelled ' against him for treating Parliament in this way.	.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: For the enlightenment of my hon. friend, who, I am sorry to observe, is not feeling as pleasant as he ought to feel at this hour of the morning, I may say that in 1912 the Naval expenditure was $1,233,456.08. I shall not give the figures for any further years, hut if the Estimate at present before. the committee is compared with that figure and regard is had to the increased cost of everything,

hon. members will agree that the amount now asked is not out of the way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister himself is not quite as pleasant as he ought to be at this hour, so far as I can see. He has not yet explained this decrease compared with Estimates of 1919-20. Any one reading these Estimates would be under the impression that the Government were asking for $300,000 less this year than last year. Either that $300,000 has a meaning or it has not. If it has a meaning, I wish the minister would make it plain.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If no other information has been put before the committee my' hon. friend would be quite right in his contention, but, in view of all the detailed information that has been submitted I really have nothing more to say.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


The CHAIRMAN:: I desire to remind the committee that when these items were previously under consideration it was moved by Mr. Ballantyne that item 198, to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $300,000, and item 512, $1,700,000, for the same purpose, should be considered together. The motion did not provide that they should be voted upon together. I merely wish to warn hon. members that the discussion is now concluded on both and that the votes will be taken in succession without further debate. Shall item 198 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
['I desire to remind the committee that when these items were previously under consideration it was moved by Mr. Ballantyne that item 198, to provide for the maintenance of the Royal Canadian Navy, $300,000, and item 512, $1,700,000, for the same purpose, should be considered together. The motion did not provide that they should be voted upon together. I merely wish to warn hon. members that the discussion is now concluded on both and that the votes will be taken in succession without further debate. Shall item 198 carry?']
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall item 512 carry?
Item agreed to on division: yeas, 55; nays, 31.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister not think we have covered about enough for to-day?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We are just about through. I may say that the Government are very anxious that Parliament should prorogue to-morrow night. We have only a few items here.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite will have to show some consideration to members on this side; otherwise we will sit here for the Test of the week.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I may tell my hon. friend that, while we are anxious to prorogue, if the hon. member wants to stay we can stay just as long as he can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, my hon. friend can have his test right here and now.
Civil Government-Department of Naval Ser-vioe-salaries $272,340, contingencies $50,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We on this
side are quite prepared to expedite the business of the House, but to be perfectly frank with my hon. friend, if he insists on pressing further business to-night, I shall for my part take very good care to see that this House does not prorogue to-morrow night. Furthermore, I may say to my hon. friend that I had a distinct understanding with the Prime Minister that when we passed these Naval Service items to-night this House would adjourn. If my hon. friend wishes to go on in spite of that, he is free to do so.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend has just stated what the Prime Minister said, but my hon. friend has not allowed the Naval Estimates to pass.


Avard Longley Davidson: I think the hon. gentleman must be under a misapprehension. As I understood it, he agreed with me that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would be allowed to get through his Estimates and then the House would adjourn. I communicated that intelligence to the minister and he agreed to it.


William Duff: How is this amount of $272,340 made up? I would like a list of the salaries.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be very glad to give any information I have. This is for salaries under the Civil Service classification, which the Government are asked to vote.


William Duff: I can quite understand this is for salaries under the reclassification of the Civil Service, but I would like a detailed statement of how many officials there are for whom this amount is to be voted for salaries, and what aTe their duties in the Department of Naval Service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My staying powers are just as good as my hon. friend's. The details are as follows:
1
1
]
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
6
1
5
9
1
[8
15
2
9
1



[Stage Direction]
Class.
Deputy Minister and Controller	
Asst. Deputy Minister	,
Chief Accountant	
Chief Hydrographer	
Superintendent of Fisheries.'	
Director Radiotelegraph Service	
Chief Tidal and Current Surveyor	
Director of Naval Stores	
Fisheries Specialists: 1 at 34.000, 1 at $3,420	
Hydrographers: 1 at $3,500, 1 at $3,000	
Purchasing Agent	
Chief Inspector Fish Curing and Packing	
Supt. of Fish Culture	
Dist. Supt. Radio. Service	
Resident Engineer Fish Hatcheries	
Asst. Hydrographer: 1 at $2,940, 1 at $2,460	
Accountant	
Head Clerks: 2 at $2,520, 4 at $2,400	
Principal Map Draftsman	
Principal Translator	
Principal Clerks: 1 at $2,500, 1 at $2,040, 2 at $1,920, 1 at $1,800	
Inspector of Hatcheries	
Asst. Zoologist	
Publicity Agent	
Junior Accountant	
Principal Account. Clerks: 1 at $2,280, 1 at $2,160, 2 at $1,920, 1 at $1,800_
Assistant Engineer	
Principal File Clerk	
Principal Clerk Bookkeepers: 2 at $1,920	
Tidal and Current Surveyors: 1 at $2,300, 1 at $2,160	
Storekeeper	
Junior Purchasing Agents: 1 at $1,800, 1 at $1,560	
Assistant Architect	
Senior Map Draftsmen: 2 at $2,100, 1 at $1,920	
Senior Draftsman	
Translator...'	
Junior Engineer	
Map Draftsman	
Senior Engineering Clerk	
Senior Account Clerks, 2 at $1,380, 1 at $1,320	
Senior Audit Clerk	
Senior Clerks: 1 at $3,400, 1 at $1,550 , 4 at $1,380, 3 at $1,320	
Senior Clerk-Bookkeepers: 1 at $2,100, 2 at $1,440	
Senior File Clerks: 1 at $2,700, 3 at $1,380	
Senior Clerk Stenographers: 1 at $1,440, 5 at $1,380	
Senior Statistical Clerks: 1 at $1,450, 1 at $1,400	
Senior Transportation Audit Clerk	
Senior !M^©ssGHf5cr
Accounts Clerks: 2 at $1,400, 1 at $1,100, 2 at $1,020	
Audit Clerks: 1 at $1,050, 1 at $1,020, 1 at $960	
File Clerks: 7 at $1,020, 2 at $960	
Messenger Clerks: 2 at $1,050, 1 at $900, 1 at $730	
Stores Clerk	
Supplies Clerk	
Clerks: 1 at $2,100,2 at $1,400,1 at $1,300, 1 at $1,020,13 at $960	
Clerk Bookkeepers: 1 at $1,200, 1 at $1,080, 2 at $1,020	
Clerk Stenographers: 1 at $1,140, 12 at $1,020, 2 at $960	
Clerk Typists: 1 at $1,080, 1 at $960	
Jr. Audit Clerks: 2 at $700	
Jr. Account Clerk	
Jr. Clerks: 2 at $750, 1 at $700, 4 at $660, 1 at $650, 1 at $600, , . .	,
[DOT][DOT] File Clerk	
Clerk	[DOT]	
'. Clerk Bookkeepers: 1 at $750, 1 at $700, 1 at $660	
** Clerk Typists: 1 at $850, 1 at $760, 2 at $750, 4 at $700, 1 at $650, 1 at $600. inior Clerk Stenographers: 2 at $800, 3 at $750, 3 at $700, 1 at $650 1 at $600.
Salaries.
$ cts. 6,000 00
4.200	00 4,260 00
4.500	00
4.200	00 3.900 00 3,700 00 3,660 00 7,420 00
6.500	00
3.060	00 2,880 00
2.760	00
2.760	00
2.760	00
5.400	00 2,640 00
14,640 00 2,600 00 2,520 00 10,180 00
2.400	00
2.300	00
2.300	00
2.300	00 10,080 00
2,220 00
1.920	00
3.840	00 4,460 00
1.920	00 3,360 00 2,220 00 6,120 00 1,680 00 1,450 00 1,680 00 1,550 00 1,800 00 4,080 00
1.380	00 14,430 00
4,980 00
6.840	00 8,340 00 2,850 00
1.380	00
1.050	00 5,940 00 3,030 00
9.060	00 3,720 00
1.050	00 1,140 00
19,700 00 4,320 00 15,300 00 2,040 00
1.400	00 650 00
6,090 00 800 00 750 00 2,110 00 7,160 00
7.200	00
Totals
292,930 00
Contingencies.
Stationery, Printing, temporary clerks, travelling expenses, telegrams, telephone tolls, etc
[Stage Direction]
Ballantyne.]
William Duff: We are very glad1 to get that information from the minister. I gathered, as he was reading the list, that some of these officials were employed in the Department of Fisheries and some in the Department of Naval Service. Would the minister tell us what portion of this $272,000 is for officials in the Naval Service Department, and how many officials there are in that department?


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am sure we do. not wish to retard) the business of the House. We on this side have registered our strong opposition to the policy of the Government in its naval proposals. However anxious we are not to delay the business of the House, we have understood from the leader of the Opposition that there existed between the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government and himself a clear understanding as to what should be carried this evening, and my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition stated to the committee in clear and distinct terms that the only items that were understood between himself and the leader of the 'Government to be adopted this evening were those coming under the heading of "Naval Service," on page 47 of the Main Estimates. It can readily be understood, therefore, that there is strong opposition on the part of the leader of the Opposition to the minister taking up these other Estimates on page 8. If the minister insists upon doing it against the agreement between the two leaders, of course he has the majority and can do it, but I feel that that is not his desire. I think it would expedite the business of the House if we were to postpone consideration of these other items until to-morrow, when I am sure they can be put through in a very few moments. I do not think we have very serious objection to the item because it is mainly salaries which are fixed by the Civil Service Commission. But the ground taken by the leader of the Opposition is that the understanding arrived at between the two leaders was that only the items comprised under this heading of Naval Service on page 47 would be carried this evening.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I agree with my
genial friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland), and I stand by the agreement made between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition that only the Naval Estimates should be passed to-night, but the trouble is that the leader of the Opposition has lost his temper and gone away in a huff.
fMr. Ballantyne.1
Now, we have only one or two more strictly Naval Estimates to pass, and while I have no desire to depart for one moment from the agreement entered into between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, I think the committee might very well pass these two items, because they are included in the Naval Estimates. I stand by the agreement that was made, but my young friend the leader of the Opposition loses his temper, flares up, and is not willing to abide by the agreement entered into between himself and the leader of the Government. I am not going to depart from the agreement, and if hon. gentlemen will bear with me for five minutes more I think we can put these two items through.


Mr.   ETHLEK@: Mt. Chairman, I think it is my duty to protest against the words which the minister has used in reference to the leader of the Opposition. I think that the hon. gentleman must have forgotten himself when he stated that the leader of the Opposition lost his temper. This is improper language, in my opinion, for the hon. minister to use in reference to the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and I think hon. members on this side will unanimously resent it. For my part I emphatically protest against it.


Mr. CASGEAIN:: not had the opportunity of getting away. We have, I think, been doing our best to expedite business and I would suggest that if there has been a misunderstanding we can surely get together and settle it-it is not so important a matter-without delaying prorogation for several days more. I do not think that we should let ourselves suffer of such a misunderstanding, and the House will be wise in settling down to business and getting things through so that we may go home.
Mr. BAELANiTYNE: There are just two more items that are strictly Naval Estimates.


Jacques Bureau: What are the items?


Georges Henri Boivin: Item 17 is not carried.


Jacques Bureau: 
Mr. TOBIN:: Have hiim withdraw the
words he used in reference to the leader.


Jacques Bureau: I have stated the matter from my point of view. I do not think my 'hon. friends on this side would object to a compromise.


Avard Longley Davidson: Perhaps I might throw some light on the matter. During the discussion of the Naval 'Estimates I was on the other side for a while, and the Chief Whip and the leader of the Opposition asked me what the programme was for this evening. The leader of the Opposition suggested that it would surely be enough if we got through with the Naval Estimates, and I said I thought so. In the first instance I believe it was hoped that we would go on with the Militia Estimates this evening, but this might be late and I thought we had better not do sq. I said that I would consult with the minister and reply to him later. After consultation with the minister I went bacJr to the leader of the Opposition and told him that the Government were prepared, if the minister should be allowed to go cm and get through with his Estimates on Naval Affairs and Fisheries, not to go on with the Militia Estimates. I understood the leader of the Opposition agreed to these Estimates being passed.


Mr. BALL ANT  YNE@: I do not want to go on with Fisheries and Wireless. The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has put the matter very fairly and plainly. The Prime Minister thought it had been agreed by the leader of the Opposition that the Naval Estimates would go through. If you pass Civil Government and one more item of $290,000 that will finish it for to-night and we will still have a long list left.


Jacques Bureau: If we are going to have a compromise, it must not all be on one side. 1 made the suggestion in order that we might let everybody go home and feel happy and satisfied.
Mr. BIAiLiLANTYNE: There is no man for whom I have a greater respect than the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and i'f we pass the Civil Government Estimates we will agree to report progress.


William Duff: Before the leader of the Opposition went home he spoke to me. It is not. correct to say that he had lost his temper. He said that it was very late, that he wanted to be here at two o'clock, that he

ought to go home to get some rest, and that as the Minister of Naval Affairs was going on with his Estimates he would ask me to stay and look after them. I do not think it is fair for the minister to make the statement that the leader of the Opposition went away in a temper, amd I think he should take it back. Part of this item of $322,000 is for Fisheries. Am I correct in that?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Everything is under Naval Service, but of this amount $83,050 is for Fisheries and $188,290 for Naval Service. Both are lumped together under the heading of Civil Government.


William Duff: Why is it necessary to spend $188,000 for salaries for naval officials at Ottawa in view of the fact that "we are only spending $2,000,000 on the Naval Service? This is too large an, amount to spend for the salaries of officials in Ottawa.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In order to keep the arrangement with the honi. member for Three Rivers I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 4 a.m., Tuesday.
Tuesday, June 29, 1920.